Stern v. United States
436 F.2d 1327 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A political contribution is not a taxable gift if it constitutes a transfer made in the 'ordinary course of business,' which is defined as a transaction that is bona fide, at arm's length, and free from donative intent, even if the transaction is not part of a conventional trade or business.
Facts:
- In the late 1950s and early 1960s, studies indicated Louisiana's economy was lagging significantly behind other Southern states, which business leaders attributed in part to the state government's attitude and tax policies.
- Concerned about the negative effect of this economic climate on her property and personal interests, Mrs. Edith R. Stern, along with other citizens, decided to financially support a slate of reform-minded political candidates.
- In 1959 and 1960, Mrs. Stern contributed a total of $44,600 to support the gubernatorial campaign of de Lesseps S. Morrison.
- In 1961, Mrs. Stern contributed $16,250 to support the mayoral campaign of Adrian S. Duplantier in New Orleans.
- An informal finance committee, of which Mrs. Stern was a part, managed these contributions.
- The committee retained control over the funds, directing them toward campaign expenses like advertising, and no funds were ever under the personal control of or for the personal use of any candidate.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Edith R. Stern filed gift tax returns for 1959, 1960, and 1961 but did not include her political contributions, asserting they were business-related expenditures.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined the contributions were taxable gifts and assessed a tax deficiency against Mrs. Stern totaling $35,908.41.
- Mrs. Stern paid the assessed deficiency.
- Mrs. Stern filed a claim for a refund, which was denied.
- Mrs. Stern (plaintiff) brought an action against the United States (defendant) in U.S. District Court (trial court) to recover the paid deficiency.
- Following a nonjury trial, the district court found in favor of Mrs. Stern, holding that the contributions were not taxable gifts.
- The United States (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, with Mrs. Stern as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do political campaign contributions, made primarily to protect and advance the contributor's personal property and business interests by fostering a more favorable economic climate, constitute taxable gifts under the Internal Revenue Code?
Opinions:
Majority - Thornberry, J.
No. Political campaign contributions made to protect the contributor's property and business interests do not constitute taxable gifts when they are part of a transaction that is bona fide, at arm's length, and free from donative intent, thus falling under the 'ordinary course of business' exception in Treasury Regulations § 25.2512-8. The court rejected the government's narrow interpretation that the 'ordinary course of business' exception applies only to transactions within a taxpayer's actual trade or business. Citing precedents like Harris v. Commissioner, the court held that the spirit of the regulation can be satisfied even in unconventional transactions if the parenthetical criteria—bona fide, at arm's length, and free from donative intent—are met. Here, Mrs. Stern's contributions were motivated by a desire to protect and advance her extensive property holdings and business interests by improving the political and economic climate. She was making an 'economic investment' to achieve a favorable financial return. Because the trial court's findings that the transactions were bona fide, at arm's length, and free from donative intent were undisputed, the expenditures are considered as made for an adequate and full consideration in money's worth and are therefore not taxable gifts.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the application of the 'ordinary course of business' exception to the gift tax, extending it beyond conventional commercial activities. By focusing on the taxpayer's motive—economic self-interest versus donative intent—the court established a precedent allowing political contributions to be treated as non-taxable expenditures. This ruling provides a basis for taxpayers to argue that expenditures made to influence the political or economic environment for the purpose of protecting personal assets are not gifts. The case shifts the legal analysis from the nature of the recipient (a political campaign) to the nature of the transaction and the intent of the transferor.
Unlock the full brief for Stern v. United States