Overton v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
162 F.2d 155, 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 3372, 35 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1427 (1947)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A taxpayer cannot escape taxation on income by formally gifting property that, in substance, only transfers the right to receive future income while the taxpayer retains ownership and control of the underlying income-producing capital.
Facts:
- Shareholders of Castle & Overton, Inc., including petitioners Overton and Oliphant, devised a plan to lessen their tax burden.
- On May 26, 1936, the corporation's 1,000 common shares were reclassified into 1,000 Class A shares and 1,000 Class B shares.
- The husbands retained the Class A stock, which held all voting rights and rights to nearly all corporate assets upon liquidation.
- The husbands gifted the Class B stock to their wives; this stock had a total liquidating value of only one dollar per share and its sale was restricted to that amount.
- The new corporate structure allocated the first $10 per share in annual dividends to Class A stock, but allocated four-fifths (80%) of all dividends declared in excess of that amount to the Class B stock.
- This structure resulted in the Class B stock receiving dividends of $150.40 per share over a six-year period, while the more valuable Class A stock received only $77.60 per share.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined deficiencies against petitioner Overton for gift tax for the years 1936 and 1937 and against petitioner Oliphant for income tax for 1941.
- The petitioners challenged the Commissioner's determinations in the United States Tax Court.
- The Tax Court ruled in favor of the Commissioner, holding that the dividends paid to the wives were taxable income to the husbands.
- The petitioners, as appellants, appealed the Tax Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
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 stock recapitalization plan, where husbands gift a newly created class of stock to their wives that holds negligible capital value but is designed to receive a disproportionate share of future dividends, constitute an ineffective anticipatory assignment of income, making those dividends taxable to the husbands who retained the controlling, capital-heavy stock?
Opinions:
Majority - Swan, Circuit Judge
Yes. A stock recapitalization plan that separates the right to future income from the underlying capital and purports to gift that income right is an ineffective anticipatory assignment of income. The court must prioritize substance over form. Here, the husbands retained ownership of the capital that earned the income (the Class A stock), as the Class B stock represented a negligible interest in the corporate assets. The arrangement gave the wives 'substantially nothing, but the right to future earnings flowing from property retained by the husbands.' Citing the principle from cases like Lucas v. Earl and Helvering v. Horst, the court concluded that an anticipatory assignment of income, regardless of its form, is ineffective for tax purposes, and the income remains taxable to the one who controls the underlying property that generates it.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the 'substance over form' and 'assignment of income' doctrines in tax law. It demonstrates that courts will scrutinize complex corporate restructurings, especially within a family, that appear designed solely for tax avoidance. The case establishes that a gift of property, to be effective in shifting the tax burden on its income, must involve a meaningful transfer of the underlying capital—the 'tree'—not just an assignment of the future 'fruit.' This precedent makes it difficult for taxpayers to deflect income to lower-bracket family members while retaining beneficial ownership and control of the income-producing asset.
