Hormel v. Helvering
312 U.S. 552 (1941)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appellate court may consider a new legal issue not raised before a lower court or administrative agency in exceptional circumstances where failing to do so would result in a plain miscarriage of justice.
Facts:
- In 1934, Jay C. Hormel created three separate trusts, each for the benefit of one of his sons.
- The assets of each trust consisted of shares of stock in Geo. A. Hormel & Co., a company where Hormel was an officer.
- Hormel named himself and another individual as co-trustees for each trust.
- The trust instruments provided that the trusts would automatically expire after three years, at which point the entire principal would revert to Hormel or his estate.
- Hormel and his wife had the power to remove the co-trustee at any time and choose a successor.
- For the tax years 1934 and 1935, all trust income was distributed to Hormel's wife as guardian for their sons.
- Hormel did not include this trust income in his personal income tax returns for those years.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed a tax deficiency against Jay C. Hormel for the tax years 1934 and 1935.
- Hormel, the taxpayer, challenged the deficiency before the Board of Tax Appeals (the trial-level tax court).
- Before the Board, the Commissioner argued the income was taxable under §§ 166 and 167 of the Revenue Act.
- The Board of Tax Appeals ruled in favor of Hormel.
- The Commissioner, as petitioner, appealed the Board's decision to the Circuit Court of Appeals.
- Before the Circuit Court of Appeals, the Commissioner introduced a new argument that the income was taxable under § 22(a) of the Revenue Act.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Board's decision, holding that it could consider the § 22(a) argument and that the income was taxable to Hormel under that section.
- Hormel, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Circuit Court of Appeals have the authority to consider a legal argument not raised before the Board of Tax Appeals when failing to do so would result in a plain miscarriage of justice?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
Yes. A Circuit Court of Appeals has the authority to consider a new legal argument not raised below in exceptional circumstances to prevent a plain miscarriage of justice. The court's statutory power is to modify or reverse decisions that are not in accordance with law 'as justice may require.' While the general rule is that appellate courts do not consider issues not raised below, this is a rule of practice, not an inflexible command. In this case, the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Helvering v. Clifford established a new understanding of tax liability under § 22(a) for trusts like the one Hormel created. To ignore this controlling precedent and allow Hormel to escape a tax he clearly owes would constitute a plain miscarriage of justice, justifying a departure from the general rule.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant exception to the principle of waiver, which typically bars parties from raising new arguments on appeal. By creating the "plain miscarriage of justice" exception, the Court provided appellate tribunals with the flexibility to ensure that outcomes align with substantive law, especially when controlling precedent changes during the course of litigation. This decision prioritizes ultimate justice over rigid procedural regularity, influencing how appellate courts handle issue preservation in appeals from administrative agencies.
Unlock the full brief for Hormel v. Helvering