| 词条 | Bogardus v. Commissioner |
| 释义 |
|Litigants= Bogardus v. Commissioner |ArgueDate= October 18 |ArgueYear= 1937 |DecideDate= November 8 |DecideYear= 1937 |FullName= Bogardus v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue |USVol= 302 |USPage= 34 |ParallelCitations= 58 S. Ct. 61; 82 L. Ed. 32, 37-2 USTC (CCH) ¶ 9534; 19 A.F.T.R. 1195; 1937-2 C.B. 258 |Prior= Bogardus v. Helvering, 88 F.2d [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/88/646/1511120/ 646] (2d Cir. 1937) (reversed) |Subsequent= |Holding= That a distribution of money by a corporation, by a resolution passed by the board of directors and stockholders, to the company's past and present employees who had no ties with the corporation, in recognition of their past service was a non-taxable gift which the company received no servers for so it was not "compensation for personal services". |SCOTUS=1937-1938 |Majority= Sutherland |JoinMajority= McReynolds, Butler, Roberts, Hughes |Concurrence= |JoinConcurrence= |Concurrence2= |JoinConcurrence2= |Concurrence/Dissent= |JoinConcurrence/Dissent= |Dissent= Brandeis |JoinDissent= Stone, Cardozo, Black |Dissent2= |JoinDissent2= |LawsApplied=26 U.S.C. § 22 }} Bogardus v. Commissioner, 302 U.S. 34 (1937),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case discussing, under United States tax law, how to distinguish compensation from tax-exempt gifts under §102(a). It is notable (and thus appears frequently in law school casebooks) for the following holdings:
Nothing connected the donees (or the old corporation) to the donors (and their new corporation). The gifts were made, without any legal or moral obligation, not for any consideration or for services rendered, but as acts of spontaneous generosity in appreciation of past loyalty of the donees which had benefited the donors when stockholders of the older company.
Facts{{Empty section|date=July 2010}}IssueIs a sum of money paid to former stockholders and employees compensation which is subject to Federal Income Tax or a gift that is exempt from taxes? Opinion of the CourtThe term "gift" in §102(a) is largely to be defined by reference to the motives of the payor. If the payment, though voluntary, is "in return for services rendered," or proceeds from "the constraining force of any moral or legal duty," or anticipates a "benefit" to the payor, then it is taxable to the payee even if characterized as a "gift" by the payor. On the other hand, if the payment proceeds from a "detached and disinterested generosity," if it is made "out of affection, respect ... or like impulses," then it is an excludable gift even though the relationship between payor and payee has previously been in a business context. See also
References1. ^{{ussc|name=Bogardus v. Commissioner|link=|volume=302|page=34|pin=|year=1937}}. External links
| case = Bogardus v. Commissioner, {{Ussc|302|34|1937|el=no}} | cornell =https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/302/34 | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/102850/bogardus-v-commissioner/ | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6961010420254847719 | justia =http://supreme.justia.com/us/302/34/case.html | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep302/usrep302034/usrep302034.pdf{{DEFAULTSORT:Bogardus V. Commissioner}} 4 : United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes Court|United States taxation and revenue case law|1937 in United States case law |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。