Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

Income from Corporate Dividends

Thomas Reed Powell
Harvard Law Review
Vol. 35, No. 4 (Feb., 1922), pp. 363-392
DOI: 10.2307/1328647
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1328647
Page Count: 30
  • Download PDF
  • Add to My Lists
  • Cite this Item
Income from Corporate Dividends
We're having trouble loading this content. Download PDF instead.

Notes and References

This item contains 53 references.

[Footnotes]
  • 1
    La Belle Iron Works v. United States, 256 U. S.—, 41 Sup. Ct. 528 (1921)
  • 2
    This reference contains 4 citations:
    • Collector v. Hubbard, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 1 (1870)
    • 5BULLETIN OF THE NA- TIONAL TAX ASSOCIATION, 201
    • Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 217-219 (1920).
    • 34HARV. L. REV. 573, 586.
  • 3
    Mr. Justice Pitney, in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 206 (1920).
  • 4
    This reference contains 6 citations:
    • Towne v. Eisner, 245 U. S. 418, 426 (1918)
    • Lynch v. Hornby, 247 U. S. 339 (1918)
    • Peabody v. Eisner, 247 U. S. 347 (1918)
    • Peabody v. Eisner, at page 349
    • Towne v. Eisner
    • Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 211 (1920)
  • 5
    This reference contains 4 citations:
    • Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U. S. 509 (1921)
    • Eldorado Coal & Mining Co. v. Mager, 255 U. S. 522 (1921)
    • Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U. S. 527 (1921)
    • Walsh v. Brewster 255 U. S. 536 (1921).
  • 6
    This reference contains 9 citations:
    • note 5, supra
    • Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co.
    • Eisner v. Macomber, supra
    • 255 U. S. 509, 519-520.
    • Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U. S. 179, 185 (1918)
    • Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, note 5, supra
    • note 9, infra
    • Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U. S. 103 (1916)
    • THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX (Columbia University Press, 1921), pp. 66-68.
  • 7
    247 U. S. 339 (1918).
  • 8
    Peabody v. Eisner, 247 U. S. 347 (1918)
  • 9
    This reference contains 4 citations:
    • Lynch v. Hornby
    • 247 U. S. 339, 344-345.
    • Good- rich v. Edwards, note 5 supra
    • Lynch v. Turrish, note 10, infra
  • 10
    This reference contains 4 citations:
    • Lynch v. Hornby
    • Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 20.
    • 247 U. S. 339, 343-344.
    • Lynch v. Turrish, 247 U. S. 221 (1918)
  • 11
    Lynch v. Hornby
  • 13
    note 10, supra
  • 14
    247 U. S. 339, 346
  • 15
    notes 13 and 14, supra
  • 16
    257 U. S.—, 42 Sup. Ct. 63 (1921).
  • 17
    42 Sup. Ct. 63, 66 (1921).
  • 18
    42 Sup. Ct. 63, 65 (1921).
  • 19
    Ibid.
  • 20
    Ibid.
  • 21
    Ibid.
  • 22
    Ibid.
  • 24
    Note 7, supra.
  • 25
    247 U. S. 339, 344 (1918).
  • 26
    Note 16, supra.
  • 27
    42 Sup. Ct. 63, 66 (1921).
  • 28
    MONTGOMERY, INCOME TAX PROCEDURE, 1920, pp. 490-492.
  • 29
    Ibid., pp. 364-365.
  • 30
    "The Concept of Income—Economic and Legal Aspects," in THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX (Columbia University Press, 1921), pp. 1-28.
  • 31
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • "Implications and Effects of the Stock Dividend Decision," 21COLUMBIA L. REV. 313-332.
    • Lynch v. Hornby, note 10, supra
  • 32
    This reference contains 11 citations:
    • Charles E. Clark, "Eisner v. Macomber and Some Income Tax Problems," 29YALE L. J.735
    • Fred R Fairchild, " The Stock Dividend Decision," 5BULLETIN OF THE NATIONAL TAX ASSOCIATION, 208
    • Thomas Reed Powell, " The Judicial Debate on the Taxability of Stock Dividends as Income," 5BULLETIN OF THE NATIONAL TAX ASSOCIATION 247
    • "Stock Dividends, Direct Taxes, and the Sixteenth Amendment," 20. COLUMBIA L. REV. 536
    • A. M. Sakolski, "Accounting Features of the Stock Dividend Decision," 5BULLETIN OF THE NATIONAL TAX ASSOCIATION, 212
    • Edward H. Warren, " Taxability of Stock Dividends as Income," 33HARV. L. REV. 885
    • 18MICH. L. REV. 689
    • 4MINN. L. REV. 462
    • 68U. OF PENN. L. REV. 394
    • 6VIRGINIA L. REG. (N. S.) 220
    • 29YALE L. J.812.
  • 33
    252 U. S. 189 (1920).
  • 34
    240 U. S. 1 (1916).
  • 36
    247 U. S. 330 (1918).
  • 37
    248 U. S. 71 (1918).
  • 38
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Lynch v. Hornby
    • Peabody v. Eisner, note 4, supra.
  • 39
    247 U. S. 330, 334-335
  • 40
    247 U. S. 330, 335-336
  • 41
    note 39, supra
  • 42
    247 U. S. 330, 338.
  • 43
    248 U. S. 71, 72.
  • 44
    Ibid.
  • 45
    Ibid.
  • 46
    247 U. S 347 (1918).
  • 47
    Ibid., 349-350.
  • 48
    Ibid., 349.
  • 49
    257 U. S.—, 42 Sup. Ct. 63 (1921).
  • 50
    257 U. S.—, 42 Sup. Ct. 68 (1921).
  • 51
    42 Sup. Ct. 68, 69.
  • 52
    Robert H. Montgomery, "Reorganizations and the Closed Transaction," in THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX (Columbia University Press, 1921), at page 126.
  • 53
    Ibid., pp. 126-131.
  • 56
    Note 33, supra.
  • 57
    42 Sup. Ct. 63, 68.
  • 58
    United States v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 220 U. S. 257 (1911).