United States v. S. S. White Dental Manufacturing Co.
274 U.S. 398, 47 S. Ct. 598, 1927 U.S. LEXIS 38 (1927)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A loss is considered "sustained" and deductible for income tax purposes when it is fixed by identifiable events, even if there is a remote or speculative possibility of future recoupment.
Facts:
- S. S. White Dental Manufacturing Company (respondent), a Pennsylvania corporation, was engaged in the manufacture and sale of dental supplies.
- Before 1918, S. S. White Dental Manufacturing Company had organized and controlled, by ownership of all capital stock, the S. S. White Dental Manufacturing Company, m. b. h. of Berlin, Germany, a German corporation.
- S. S. White Dental Manufacturing Company's total investment in its German subsidiary in 1918, as carried on its books (represented by capital stock and an open account), aggregated over $130,000.
- In March 1918, the German government appointed a sequestrator who took over all the property and the management of the German corporation's business.
- As a result of the sequestration, the German corporation was left without property or assets, and without the legal right to demand their release or compensation for their seizure, at least until the declaration of peace.
Procedural Posture:
- S. S. White Dental Manufacturing Company (respondent) filed its income tax return for 1918, deducting the entire amount of its investment in the German corporation as a loss.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed this deduction, asserting that the loss was not evidenced by a closed and completed transaction in 1918.
- S. S. White Dental Manufacturing Company paid the assessed tax under protest.
- S. S. White Dental Manufacturing Company filed a suit against the United States in the Court of Claims to recover the income taxes paid.
- The Court of Claims rendered a judgment allowing recovery by S. S. White Dental Manufacturing Company.
- The United States (petitioner) sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court to review the judgment 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:
Does the seizure of a subsidiary's property by a foreign government constitute a "closed and completed transaction" sufficient to deduct the investment as a loss in the year of seizure, notwithstanding a remote possibility of future recovery?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stone
Yes, the seizure of a subsidiary's property by a foreign government constitutes a "closed and completed transaction" sufficient to deduct the investment as a loss in the year of seizure, even if there is a remote possibility of future recovery. The Court reasoned that Section 234 of the Revenue Act of 1918 permits deductions for "Losses sustained during the taxable year" and Treasury Regulations require such losses to be "evidenced by closed and completed transactions." The Court clarified that while mere fluctuations in value are not deductible, losses fixed by "identifiable events" – such as the sale of property, its destruction, or, in the case of debts, events preventing their collection – are. The seizure of the German company's property in 1918 was deemed such an identifiable event, as it effectively left the German corporation without assets, rendering the respondent's stock worthless and its open accounts uncollectible. The German government's actions, as a belligerent power, meant any future recovery was not a matter of right but of grace or exaction, dependent upon the hazards of war. The Taxing Act, the Court held, does not require a taxpayer to be an "incorrigible optimist" by waiting for a remote hope of eventual recoupment. Therefore, the loss was complete and deductible in 1918 when the seizure was made, despite later developments like the German government binding itself to repay or an award by the Mixed Claims Commission.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in tax law concerning the timing of loss deductions, particularly for business losses stemming from international events or government actions. It establishes that a loss is realized and deductible when an identifiable event fixes its occurrence, providing clarity that a remote or speculative chance of future recovery does not negate the completion of the loss. This principle prevents taxpayers from indefinitely deferring loss recognition due to uncertain future outcomes and guides how companies account for investments lost to expropriation or wartime seizures, emphasizing practical realities over undue optimism in tax reporting.
