Towne v. Eisner | |
---|---|
Argued December 12, 1917 Decided January 7, 1918 | |
Full case name | Towne v. Eisner, Collector of United States Internal Revenue for the Third District of the State of New York |
Citations | 245
U.S.
418 (
more) 38 S. Ct. 158; 62
L. Ed. 372; 1918
U.S. LEXIS 2143; 1 U.S. Tax Cas. (
CCH) ¶ 14; 3 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2959 |
Holding | |
A stock dividend based on accumulated profits is not "income." | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Holmes, joined by White, Day, Van Devanter, Pitney, McReynolds, Brandeis, Clarke |
Concurrence | McKenna |
Overruled by | |
Eisner v. Macomber |
Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418 (1918), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "a stock dividend based on accumulated profits was not 'income' within the true intent of the statute." [1] Congress passed a new law in reaction to Towne v. Eisner and so the case was soon overturned by the Supreme Court in Eisner v. Macomber.
It includes the quotable passage: "A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in colour and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used." ― Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. [2]