|
''Eisner v. Macomber'', , was a tax case before the United States Supreme Court. It is notable for the following holdings: *a ''pro rata'' stock dividend, where a shareholder received no actual cash or other property, and retained the same proportionate share of ownership of the corporation as was held prior to the dividend, was not taxable income to the shareholder within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment *An income tax imposed by the Revenue Act of 1916 on such dividend was unconstitutional, even where the dividend indirectly represented accrued earnings of the corporation. ==Prior cases== In 1895, the Supreme Court had held in Pollock that a tax from income on property (unlike a tax on income from employment or vocations) needed to be proportionate to state population. In 1913, the United States ratified the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which allowed taxation of income without regard to source (i.e., whether income from property or income from vocations and employment), and without regard to a state's population. In 1918, the Court in ''Towne v. Eisner'' had addressed a nearly identical situation to one in Eisner v. Macomber. (Eisner was the person responsible for Internal Revenue Collection in both cases). However, in the aftermath of ''Towne v. Eisner'', the U.S. Congress passed a revenue collection statute that specifically stated that stock dividends were to be counted as income. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Eisner v. Macomber」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|