Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HELVERING v. WINMILL

decided: November 7, 1938.

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
v.
WINMILL



CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.

Hughes, McReynolds, Brandeis, Butler, Stone, Roberts, Black, Reed

Author: Black

[ 305 U.S. Page 80]

 MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondent, in his 1932 income tax return, deducted from his gross income brokerage commissions paid and incurred in purchasing securities during that taxable year. Section 23 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1932 allows as deductions "All the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, including a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services actually rendered;. . ." Respondent contends that he was

[ 305 U.S. Page 81]

     engaged in the "business" of buying and selling securities and that the brokerage commissions amounted to "compensation for personal services actually rendered" within the meaning of § 23 (a).

The Government insists that brokers' commissions in security purchases are "expenditures, . . . properly chargeable to capital account" constituting "a part of the cost" of such property and serving only to increase respondent's loss from sales of stock under §§ 111 and 23 (r) which control allowable losses on disposal of stocks.*fn1 Section 23 (r) allows losses on stock sales to be deducted only to the extent of gains realized from such sales.*fn2 If respondent

[ 305 U.S. Page 82]

     was engaged in the "business" of buying and selling securities, and the brokers' commissions were not a "part of the cost" of the securities purchased, but were ordinary business expenses, as defined in § 23 (a), respondent was justified in deducting the brokers' commissions from his gross income for the taxable year. However, if these commissions represent a part of the cost of the securities, respondent's right to deduct is limited by § 23 (r).

The Commissioner refused to permit the deductions beyond the extent of stock losses. His action was affirmed by the Board of Tax Appeals.*fn3 The Court of Appeals held the commissions deductible if respondent was engaged in the business of buying and selling securities, and remanded for a finding as to the nature of his business.*fn4

Article 282, Treasury Regulation 77, issued under the 1932 Act, provides that "Commissions paid in purchasing securities are a part of the cost price of such securities." If this regulation governs, the respondent's contention cannot be sustained.

Regulations promulgated under the 1916 income tax law treated commissions in security purchases as a part of the securities' cost and not as ordinary expense deductions.*fn5 This interpretation has consistently reappeared in all regulations under succeeding tax statutes.*fn6 In the period since 1916 statutes have ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.