Jump to content

Commissioner v. Wilcox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Commissioner v. Wilcox
Argued January 8, 1946
Decided February 25, 1946
Full case nameCommissioner of Internal Revenue v. Wilcox, et al.
Citations327 U.S. 404 (more)
66 S. Ct. 546; 90 L. Ed. 752; 1946 U.S. LEXIS 3084; 46-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 9188; 34 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 811; 1946-1 C.B. 6; 166 A.L.R. 884; 1946 P.H. P72,014
Case history
PriorCertiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Court membership
Chief Justice
Harlan F. Stone
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Frank Murphy · Robert H. Jackson
Wiley B. Rutledge · Harold H. Burton
Case opinions
MajorityMurphy, joined by Stone, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas, Rutledge
DissentBurton
Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
§ 22 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code
Overruled by
James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213 (1961)

Commissioner v. Wilcox, 327 U.S. 404 (1946), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.[1]

The issue presented in this case was whether embezzled money constituted taxable income to the embezzler under § 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.

Although the Court ruled that the embezzlement income was not taxable to the embezzler in Wilcox, the Court later overruled the decision in James v. United States.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Commissioner v. Wilcox, 327 U.S. 404 (1946).

Further reading

[edit]
  • Gilbert, J. H. Jr. (1962). "Problems Resulting from Taxation of Embezzled Funds". Florida Law Review. 15: 98. ISSN 1045-4241.
  • Grow, J. (1961). "An Historical Approach to the Concept of Income Taxation of Embezzled Funds". Alabama Law Review. 14: 91. ISSN 0002-4279.
  • Landisman, Joseph (1946). "Embezzled Funds as Income". California Law Review. 34 (2). California Law Review, Vol. 34, No. 2: 449–452. doi:10.2307/3477187. JSTOR 3477187.
  • Solomon, Milton D. (1946). "Embezzled Funds as Income". Michigan Law Review. 44 (5). Michigan Law Review, Vol. 44, No. 5: 885–888. doi:10.2307/1283700. JSTOR 1283700.
[edit]