Upload
lethien
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
© Steven J. Willis 2006 1
INTRODUCTION TO TAX SCHOOL
Top 100 Cases
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101 (1930)
INTRODUCTION TO TAX SCHOOL
Top 100 Cases
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101 (1930)
© Steven J. Willis 2006 2
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
• Lucas v. Earl is famous for two important overlapping propositions:
– The Claim of Right Doctrine.
– Every Year Stands Alone.
• This second proposition is conjunction with two other famous cases:
– Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks, 282 U.S. 359 (1931) – U.S. v. Lewis, 340 U.S. 590 (1951).
© Steven J. Willis 2006 3
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
• Lucas v. Earl is famous for two important overlapping propositions:
– The Claim of Right Doctrine.
– Every Year Stands Alone.
• This second proposition is conjunction with two other famous cases:
– Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks, 282 U.S. 359 (1931) – U.S. v. Lewis, 340 U.S. 590 (1951).
The Assignment of Income DoctrineThe Assignment of Income Doctrine
© Steven J. Willis 2006 4
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
• Lucas v. Earl is famous for two important overlapping propositions:
– The Claim of Right Doctrine.
– Every Year Stands Alone.
• This second proposition is conjunction with two other famous cases:
– Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks, 282 U.S. 359 (1931) – U.S. v. Lewis, 340 U.S. 590 (1951).
The Fruit and Tree AnalogyThe Fruit and Tree Analogy
The Assignment of Income DoctrineThe Assignment of Income Doctrine
© Steven J. Willis 2006 5
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
• Lucas v. Earl is famous for two important overlapping propositions:
– The Claim of Right Doctrine.
– Every Year Stands Alone.
– The first proposition more precisely states:
– Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks, 282 U.S. 359 (1931) – U.S. v. Lewis, 340 U.S. 590 (1951).
The Assignment of Income DoctrineThe Assignment of Income Doctrine
The Fruit and Tree AnalogyThe Fruit and Tree Analogy
© Steven J. Willis 2006 6
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
• Lucas v. Earl is famous for two important overlapping propositions:
– The Claim of Right Doctrine.
– Every Year Stands Alone.
– The first proposition more precisely states:
– Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks, 282 U.S. 359 (1931) – U.S. v. Lewis, 340 U.S. 590 (1951).
The Assignment of Income DoctrineThe Assignment of Income Doctrine
The Fruit and Tree AnalogyThe Fruit and Tree Analogy
Income from personal servicesis taxed to the person who controls the earning of it.
Income from personal servicesis taxed to the person who controls the earning of it.
© Steven J. Willis 2006 7
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
The reference to personal servicesdistinguishes the case from
subsequent Assignment of Income cases dealing with income from
property.
Income from personal servicesis taxed to the person who controls the earning of it.
Income from personal servicesis taxed to the person who controls the earning of it.
© Steven J. Willis 2006 8
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
The reference to personal servicesdistinguishes the case from
subsequent Assignment of Income cases dealing with income from
property.
Income from personal servicesis taxed to the person who controls the earning of it.
Income from personal servicesis taxed to the person who controls the earning of it.
© Steven J. Willis 2006 9
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
The reference to personal servicesdistinguishes the case from
subsequent Assignment of Income cases dealing with income from
property.
Income from personal servicesis taxed to the person who controls the earning of it.
Income from personal servicesis taxed to the person who controls the earning of it.
© Steven J. Willis 2006 10
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
The reference to personal servicesdistinguishes the case from
subsequent Assignment of Income cases dealing with income from
property.
Income from personal servicesis taxed to the person who controls the earning of it.
Income from personal servicesis taxed to the person who controls the earning of it.
–Blair v. Comm’r, 300 U.S. 5 (1937)–Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112 (1940)–Helvering v. Eubank, 311 U.S. 122 (1940)–Harrison v. Schaffner, 312 U.S. 579 (1941)
–Blair v. Comm’r, 300 U.S. 5 (1937)–Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112 (1940)–Helvering v. Eubank, 311 U.S. 122 (1940)–Harrison v. Schaffner, 312 U.S. 579 (1941)
© Steven J. Willis 2006 11
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
The reference to personal servicesdistinguishes the case from
subsequent Assignment of Income cases dealing with income from
property.
Income from personal servicesis taxed to the person who controls the earning of it.
Income from personal servicesis taxed to the person who controls the earning of it.
–Blair v. Comm’r, 300 U.S. 5 (1937)–Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112 (1940)–Helvering v. Eubank, 311 U.S. 122 (1940)–Harrison v. Schaffner, 312 U.S. 579 (1941)
–Blair v. Comm’r, 300 U.S. 5 (1937)–Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112 (1940)–Helvering v. Eubank, 311 U.S. 122 (1940)–Harrison v. Schaffner, 312 U.S. 579 (1941)
© Steven J. Willis 2006 12
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
The reference to personal servicesdistinguishes the case from
subsequent Assignment of Income cases dealing with income from
property.
Income from personal servicesis taxed to the person who controls the earning of it.
Income from personal servicesis taxed to the person who controls the earning of it.
–Blair v. Comm’r, 300 U.S. 5 (1937)–Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112 (1940)–Helvering v. Eubank, 311 U.S. 122 (1940)–Harrison v. Schaffner, 312 U.S. 579 (1941)
–Blair v. Comm’r, 300 U.S. 5 (1937)–Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112 (1940)–Helvering v. Eubank, 311 U.S. 122 (1940)–Harrison v. Schaffner, 312 U.S. 579 (1941)
© Steven J. Willis 2006 13
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
The reference to personal servicesdistinguishes the case from
subsequent Assignment of Income cases dealing with income from
property.
Income from personal servicesis taxed to the person who controls the earning of it.
Income from personal servicesis taxed to the person who controls the earning of it.
–Blair v. Comm’r, 300 U.S. 5 (1937)–Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112 (1940)–Helvering v. Eubank, 311 U.S. 122 (1940)–Harrison v. Schaffner, 312 U.S. 579 (1941)
–Blair v. Comm’r, 300 U.S. 5 (1937)–Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112 (1940)–Helvering v. Eubank, 311 U.S. 122 (1940)–Harrison v. Schaffner, 312 U.S. 579 (1941)
© Steven J. Willis 2006 14
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
The reference to personal servicesdistinguishes the case from
subsequent Assignment of Income cases dealing with income from
property.
Income from personal servicesis taxed to the person who controls the earning of it.
Income from personal servicesis taxed to the person who controls the earning of it.
–Blair v. Comm’r, 300 U.S. 5 (1937)–Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112 (1940)–Helvering v. Eubank, 311 U.S. 122 (1940)–Harrison v. Schaffner, 312 U.S. 579 (1941)
–Blair v. Comm’r, 300 U.S. 5 (1937)–Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112 (1940)–Helvering v. Eubank, 311 U.S. 122 (1940)–Harrison v. Schaffner, 312 U.S. 579 (1941)
These four cases are also on the top 100 list.
These four cases are also on the top 100 list.
© Steven J. Willis 2006 15
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
• To summarize:
– When you hear of Lucas v. Earl you must think of:
– You should also associate the case with transactional accountingand the notion that every year stands alone.
• Ideally, you would also associate the case with– Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks, 282 U.S. 359 (1931) – U.S. v. Lewis, 340 U.S. 590 (1951).
© Steven J. Willis 2006 16
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
• To summarize:
– When you hear of Lucas v. Earl you must think of:
– You should also associate the case with transactional accountingand the notion that every year stands alone.
• Ideally, you would also associate the case with– Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks, 282 U.S. 359 (1931) – U.S. v. Lewis, 340 U.S. 590 (1951).
The Assignment of Income DoctrineThe Assignment of Income Doctrine
© Steven J. Willis 2006 17
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
• To summarize:
– When you hear of Lucas v. Earl you must think of:
– You should also associate the case with transactional accountingand the notion that every year stands alone.
• Ideally, you would also associate the case with– Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks, 282 U.S. 359 (1931) – U.S. v. Lewis, 340 U.S. 590 (1951).
The Assignment of Income DoctrineThe Assignment of Income Doctrine
Ideally, you will recall it deals with
income from services.
Ideally, you will recall it deals with
income from services.
© Steven J. Willis 2006 18
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
• To summarize:
– When you hear of Lucas v. Earl you must think of:
– You should also associate the case with transactional accountingand the notion that every year stands alone.
• Ideally, you would also associate the case with– Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks, 282 U.S. 359 (1931) – U.S. v. Lewis, 340 U.S. 590 (1951).
The Assignment of Income DoctrineThe Assignment of Income Doctrine
Ideally, you will recall it deals with
income from services.
Ideally, you will recall it deals with
income from services.
And, you should associate it with the
Fruit and Tree Analogy.
And, you should associate it with the
Fruit and Tree Analogy.
© Steven J. Willis 2006 19
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
And, you should associate it with the
Fruit and Tree Analogy.
And, you should associate it with the
Fruit and Tree Analogy.
© Steven J. Willis 2006 20
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
• Facts: – H & W agreed to share equally in all
earnings of each other. Joint returns were not available.
• Issue:– Who is taxed on the earnings, which
are actually split equally.• Held:
– Earner is taxed. Thus H pays on his income and W pays tax on hers.
• Facts: – H & W agreed to share equally in all
earnings of each other. Joint returns were not available.
• Issue:– Who is taxed on the earnings, which
are actually split equally.• Held:
– Earner is taxed. Thus H pays on his income and W pays tax on hers.
© Steven J. Willis 2006 21
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
• Facts: – H & W agreed to share equally in all
earnings of each other. Joint returns were not available.
• Issue:– Who is taxed on the earnings, which
are actually split equally?• Held:
– Earner is taxed. Thus H pays on his income and W pays tax on hers.
• Facts: – H & W agreed to share equally in all
earnings of each other. Joint returns were not available.
• Issue:– Who is taxed on the earnings, which
are actually split equally?• Held:
– Earner is taxed. Thus H pays on his income and W pays tax on hers.
© Steven J. Willis 2006 22
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
• Facts: – H & W agreed to share equally in all
earnings of each other. Joint returns were not available.
• Issue:– Who is taxed on the earnings, which
are actually split equally.• Held:
– Earner is taxed. Thus H pays on all of his income and W pays tax on all of her income.
• Facts: – H & W agreed to share equally in all
earnings of each other. Joint returns were not available.
• Issue:– Who is taxed on the earnings, which
are actually split equally.• Held:
– Earner is taxed. Thus H pays on all of his income and W pays tax on all of her income.
© Steven J. Willis 2006 23
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
For example:•Suppose H earned $100,000 and W earned $60,000.
•Per their agreement, each would receive $80,000 [half of the total $160,000].
•H would be taxed on his $100,000 and W would be taxed on her $60,000.
For example:•Suppose H earned $100,000 and W earned $60,000.
•Per their agreement, each would receive $80,000 [half of the total $160,000].
•H would be taxed on his $100,000 and W would be taxed on her $60,000.
© Steven J. Willis 2006 24
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
For example:•Suppose H earned $100,000 and W earned $60,000.
•Per their agreement, each would receive $80,000 [half of the total $160,000].
•H would be taxed on his $100,000 and W would be taxed on her $60,000.
For example:•Suppose H earned $100,000 and W earned $60,000.
•Per their agreement, each would receive $80,000 [half of the total $160,000].
•H would be taxed on his $100,000 and W would be taxed on her $60,000.
© Steven J. Willis 2006 25
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
For example:•Suppose H earned $100,000 and W earned $60,000.
•Per their agreement, each would receive $80,000 [half of the total $160,000].
•H would be taxed on his $100,000 and W would be taxed on her $60,000.
For example:•Suppose H earned $100,000 and W earned $60,000.
•Per their agreement, each would receive $80,000 [half of the total $160,000].
•H would be taxed on his $100,000 and W would be taxed on her $60,000.
© Steven J. Willis 2006 26
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
For example:•Suppose H earned $100,000 and W earned $60,000.
•Per their agreement, each would receive $80,000 [half of the total $160,000].
•H would be taxed on his $100,000 and W would be taxed on her $60,000.
For example:•Suppose H earned $100,000 and W earned $60,000.
•Per their agreement, each would receive $80,000 [half of the total $160,000].
•H would be taxed on his $100,000 and W would be taxed on her $60,000.
© Steven J. Willis 2006 27
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
For example:•Suppose H earned $100,000 and W earned $60,000.
•Per their agreement, each would receive $80,000 [half of the total $160,000].
•H would be taxed on his $100,000 and W would be taxed on her $60,000.
For example:•Suppose H earned $100,000 and W earned $60,000.
•Per their agreement, each would receive $80,000 [half of the total $160,000].
•H would be taxed on his $100,000 and W would be taxed on her $60,000.
Per Lucas v. Earl, the attempted assignment of
income from services would not be successful.
Per Lucas v. Earl, the attempted assignment of
income from services would not be successful.
© Steven J. Willis 2006 28
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
For example:•Suppose H earned $100,000 and W earned $60,000.
•Per their agreement, each would receive $80,000 [half of the total $160,000].
•H would be taxed on his $100,000 and W would be taxed on her $60,000.
For example:•Suppose H earned $100,000 and W earned $60,000.
•Per their agreement, each would receive $80,000 [half of the total $160,000].
•H would be taxed on his $100,000 and W would be taxed on her $60,000.
Per Lucas v. Earl, the attempted assignment of
income from services would not be successful.
Per Lucas v. Earl, the attempted assignment of
income from services would not be successful.
© Steven J. Willis 2006 29
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
• Facts: – H & W agreed to share equally in all
earnings of each other. Joint returns were not available.
• Issue:– Who is taxed on the earnings, which
are actually split equally.• Held:
– Earner is taxed. Thus H pays on all of his income and W pays tax on all of her income.
• Facts: – H & W agreed to share equally in all
earnings of each other. Joint returns were not available.
• Issue:– Who is taxed on the earnings, which
are actually split equally.• Held:
– Earner is taxed. Thus H pays on all of his income and W pays tax on all of her income.
© Steven J. Willis 2006 30
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
But, in Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101 (1930), the Court held that taxpayers in a
community property state do split income: each legally owns ½ of the others’
earnings.
But, in Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101 (1930), the Court held that taxpayers in a
community property state do split income: each legally owns ½ of the others’
earnings.
• Facts: – H & W agreed to share equally in all
earnings of each other. Joint returns were not available.
• Issue:– Who is taxed on the earnings, which
are actually split equally.• Held:
– Earner is taxed. Thus H pays on all of his income and W pays tax on all of her income.
• Facts: – H & W agreed to share equally in all
earnings of each other. Joint returns were not available.
• Issue:– Who is taxed on the earnings, which
are actually split equally.• Held:
– Earner is taxed. Thus H pays on all of his income and W pays tax on all of her income.
© Steven J. Willis 2006 31
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
As a result, several states adopted
community property. In turn, Congress
passed rules permitting joint returns, which
effectively permit income splitting by
spouses.
As a result, several states adopted
community property. In turn, Congress
passed rules permitting joint returns, which
effectively permit income splitting by
spouses.
But, in Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101 (1930),the Court held that taxpayers in a
community property state do split income: each legally owns ½ of the others’
earnings.
But, in Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101 (1930),the Court held that taxpayers in a
community property state do split income: each legally owns ½ of the others’
earnings.
• Facts: – H & W agreed to share equally in all
earnings of each other. Joint returns were not available.
• Issue:– Who is taxed on the earnings, which
are actually split equally.• Held:
– Earner is taxed. Thus H pays on all of his income and W pays tax on all of her income.
• Facts: – H & W agreed to share equally in all
earnings of each other. Joint returns were not available.
• Issue:– Who is taxed on the earnings, which
are actually split equally.• Held:
– Earner is taxed. Thus H pays on all of his income and W pays tax on all of her income.
© Steven J. Willis 2006 32
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
As a result, several states adopted
community property.In turn, Congress
passed rules permitting joint returns, which
effectively permit income splitting by
spouses.
As a result, several states adopted
community property.In turn, Congress
passed rules permitting joint returns, which
effectively permit income splitting by
spouses.
But, in Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101 (1930), the Court held that taxpayers in a
community property state do split income: each legally owns ½ of the others’
earnings.
But, in Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101 (1930), the Court held that taxpayers in a
community property state do split income: each legally owns ½ of the others’
earnings.
• Facts: – H & W agreed to share equally in all
earnings of each other. Joint returns were not available.
• Issue:– Who is taxed on the earnings, which
are actually split equally.• Held:
– Earner is taxed. Thus H pays on all of his income and W pays tax on all of her income.
• Facts: – H & W agreed to share equally in all
earnings of each other. Joint returns were not available.
• Issue:– Who is taxed on the earnings, which
are actually split equally.• Held:
– Earner is taxed. Thus H pays on all of his income and W pays tax on all of her income.
© Steven J. Willis 2006 33
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
As a result, several states adopted
community property.In turn, Congress
passed rules permitting joint returns, which
effectively permit income splitting by
spouses.
As a result, several states adopted
community property.In turn, Congress
passed rules permitting joint returns, which
effectively permit income splitting by
spouses.
But, in Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101 (1930), the Court held that taxpayers in a
community property state do split income: each legally owns ½ of the others’
earnings.
But, in Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101 (1930), the Court held that taxpayers in a
community property state do split income: each legally owns ½ of the others’
earnings.
• Facts: – H & W agreed to share equally in all
earnings of each other. Joint returns were not available.
• Issue:– Who is taxed on the earnings, which
are actually split equally.• Held:
– Earner is taxed. Thus H pays on all of his income and W pays tax on all of her income.
• Facts: – H & W agreed to share equally in all
earnings of each other. Joint returns were not available.
• Issue:– Who is taxed on the earnings, which
are actually split equally.• Held:
– Earner is taxed. Thus H pays on all of his income and W pays tax on all of her income.
Assignment of earnings from
services is still not permitted outside the joint return situation.
Assignment of earnings from
services is still not permitted outside the joint return situation.
© Steven J. Willis 2006 34
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
“Tax cannot be escaped by anticipatory arrangements and contracts however skillfully devised to prevent the salary
when paid from vesting even for a second in the man who earned it.”
“Tax cannot be escaped by anticipatory arrangements and contracts however skillfully devised to prevent the salary
when paid from vesting even for a second in the man who earned it.”
© Steven J. Willis 2006 35
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
“Tax cannot be escaped by anticipatory arrangements and contracts however skillfully devised to prevent the salary
when paid from vesting even for a second in the man who earned it.”
“Tax cannot be escaped by anticipatory arrangements and contracts however skillfully devised to prevent the salary
when paid from vesting even for a second in the man who earned it.”
This is some of the most quoted language of the case.
© Steven J. Willis 2006 36
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
“Tax cannot be escaped by anticipatory arrangements and contracts however skillfully devised to prevent the salary
when paid from vesting even for a second in the man who earned it.”
“Tax cannot be escaped by anticipatory arrangements and contracts however skillfully devised to prevent the salary
when paid from vesting even for a second in the man who earned it.”
Note: This decision applied to services income . . . not to property income.
Note: This decision applied to services income . . . not to property income.
© Steven J. Willis 2006 37
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
“Tax cannot be escaped by anticipatory arrangements and contracts however skillfully devised to prevent the salary
when paid from vesting even for a second in the man who earned it.”
“Tax cannot be escaped by anticipatory arrangements and contracts however skillfully devised to prevent the salary
when paid from vesting even for a second in the man who earned it.”
The Court disapproved of schemes by which “fruits
are attributed to a different tree from that on which they
grew.”
The Court disapproved of schemes by which “fruits
are attributed to a different tree from that on which they
grew.”
© Steven J. Willis 2006 38
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
“Tax cannot be escaped by anticipatory arrangements and contracts however skillfully devised to prevent the salary
when paid from vesting even for a second in the man who earned it.”
“Tax cannot be escaped by anticipatory arrangements and contracts however skillfully devised to prevent the salary
when paid from vesting even for a second in the man who earned it.”
The Court disapproved of schemes by which “fruits
are attributed to a different tree from that on which they
grew.”
The Court disapproved of schemes by which “fruits
are attributed to a different tree from that on which they
grew.”
© Steven J. Willis 2006 39
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
“Tax cannot be escaped by anticipatory arrangements and contracts however skillfully devised to prevent the salary
when paid from vesting even for a second in the man who earned it.”
“Tax cannot be escaped by anticipatory arrangements and contracts however skillfully devised to prevent the salary
when paid from vesting even for a second in the man who earned it.”
This is the other often quoted language.
The Court disapproved of schemes by which “fruits
are attributed to a different tree from that on which they
grew.”
The Court disapproved of schemes by which “fruits
are attributed to a different tree from that on which they
grew.”
© Steven J. Willis 2006 40
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
–When you hear of Lucas v. Earl you must think of:
The Assignment of Income DoctrineThe Assignment of Income Doctrine