United States v. Gilmore
83 S. Ct. 623, 1963 U.S. LEXIS 2581, 9 L.Ed.2d 570 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The deductibility of litigation expenses under § 23(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code depends on the origin and character of the claim being litigated, not on the potential consequences to the taxpayer's income-producing property if the claim is successful.
Facts:
- Mr. Gilmore's property primarily consisted of controlling stock interests in three franchised General Motors automobile dealerships.
- He served as president and principal managing officer of these corporations, and his income was almost entirely derived from salaries and dividends from them.
- Mr. Gilmore's wife, Dixie Gilmore, initiated divorce proceedings.
- In the divorce, Dixie Gilmore asserted a community property claim to a significant portion of Mr. Gilmore's stock, arguing that its increase in value was a product of his services during the marriage.
- Mr. Gilmore feared that if his wife's claim succeeded, he would lose his controlling stock interest, his corporate positions, and his principal means of livelihood.
- He was also concerned that General Motors might cancel his valuable dealer franchises if his wife's sensational allegations of marital infidelity were proven in court.
- Mr. Gilmore successfully defended against his wife's claims, securing the divorce on his own cross-claim and defeating her community property claims in their entirety.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed Mr. Gilmore's tax deductions for his divorce-related legal expenses, categorizing them as personal expenses.
- Mr. Gilmore paid the assessed tax deficiency and filed a refund suit against the United States in the Court of Claims (the court of first instance).
- The Court of Claims ruled in favor of Mr. Gilmore, holding that 80% of his legal expenses were deductible because they were incurred for the conservation of income-producing property.
- The United States, as petitioner, successfully sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are legal expenses incurred by a taxpayer in defending his ownership of income-producing property against his spouse's claims in a divorce proceeding deductible under § 23(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 as expenses for the conservation of property held for the production of income?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Harlan
No. The legal expenses are not deductible. The deductibility of litigation costs does not depend on the potential consequences to a taxpayer's income-producing property but rather on the origin and character of the claim itself. The Court reasoned that the wife's claims, which prompted the legal expenses, arose directly from the marital relationship, not from any of the husband's profit-seeking activities. Citing Lykes v. United States, the Court rejected the argument that an expense becomes deductible simply because it is necessary to prevent the loss of income-producing property. Because the Gilmore's dispute originated from a personal, family relationship, the associated legal costs are nondeductible personal expenses under § 24(a)(1).
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. The legal expenses should be deductible. The dissent stated briefly that the majority's reversal was based on an 'unjustifiably narrow interpretation' of the tax code. They would have affirmed the judgment of the Court of Claims, which had allowed the deduction based on the expenses being necessary to conserve the taxpayer's income-producing property.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing the 'origin of the claim' test as the definitive standard for determining whether litigation expenses are deductible as business expenses or are nondeductible personal expenses. By rejecting the 'consequences' test used by lower courts, the Supreme Court created a clearer, more predictable rule. This decision prevents taxpayers from deducting costs of purely personal disputes, like divorce or personal injury, simply by arguing that an adverse judgment would impact their business assets. The 'origin of the claim' doctrine remains a fundamental principle in tax law for categorizing expenditures.
