Old Colony Trust Company et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Supreme Court of United States
279 U.S. 716 (1929)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When an employer pays an employee's income tax liability pursuant to a compensation agreement, that payment constitutes a gain derived from labor and is considered additional taxable income to the employee.


Facts:

  • William M. Wood was the president of the American Woolen Company.
  • On August 3, 1916, the American Woolen Company adopted a resolution to pay any and all state and federal income taxes owed by its officers on their salaries.
  • The stated purpose of the resolution was to ensure that the officers would receive their compensation in full without any deduction for income taxes.
  • Pursuant to this resolution, the company paid Mr. Wood's federal income taxes for the years 1918 and 1919.
  • The tax payment for 1918, amounting to $681,169.88, was made by the company in 1919.
  • The tax payment for 1919, amounting to $351,179.27, was made by the company in 1920.
  • These payments were made as part of the consideration for the services rendered by Mr. Wood to the company.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined a deficiency in William M. Wood's income tax returns for the years 1919 and 1920.
  • The executors of Wood's estate (petitioners) appealed the Commissioner's determination to the United States Board of Tax Appeals.
  • The Board of Tax Appeals affirmed the Commissioner's action, finding that the tax payments made by the employer were additional income to Wood.
  • Petitioners sought review of the Board's decision by filing a petition in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
  • The Circuit Court of Appeals certified the question of law to the U.S. Supreme Court for an answer.

Locked

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 an employer's payment of an employee's income taxes, pursuant to a compensatory agreement, constitute additional taxable income to that employee?


Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Taft

Yes, an employer's payment of an employee's income tax obligation is a gain derived from labor and constitutes additional taxable income to the employee. The payment was made in consideration for services rendered, and the discharge of an obligation by a third party is equivalent to the direct receipt of payment by the person taxed. Under Section 213 of the Revenue Act of 1918, the form of payment is immaterial; the crucial fact is that the payment was compensation for services. The argument that this would lead to an absurd 'tax upon a tax' is a hypothetical not before the court, as the government had not attempted to collect such a tax.


Dissenting - Mr. Justice McReynolds

This opinion does not answer the substantive issue but dissents on jurisdictional grounds. Justice McReynolds argued that the Circuit Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction. He contended that the Board of Tax Appeals is an executive, administrative body, and the statute authorizing judicial review impermissibly requires the courts to exercise executive power rather than judicial power, thereby violating the 'case or controversy' requirement for federal courts.



Analysis:

This decision established the foundational tax principle that gross income includes any economic benefit received as compensation, regardless of its form. By treating an employer's payment of an employee's liability as income, the Court closed a significant potential loophole for providing tax-free compensation. This ruling solidified the 'accession to wealth' concept of income and remains a cornerstone for the taxation of fringe benefits and other indirect forms of remuneration. Future cases involving non-cash compensation frequently rely on the principle that the discharge of an obligation is equivalent to a direct payment.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Old Colony Trust Company et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1929)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"