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
  • Cite this Item

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
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).