G Cite
cited 7× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1984 ·
…the income that is subject to a man's unfettered command and that he is free to enjoy at his own option may be taxed to him as his income, whether he sees fit to enjoy it or not.
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1930 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1930
1978
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Hyatt Hotels Corporation & Subsidiaries
axation is not so much concerned with the refinements of title as it is with actual command over the property taxed-the actual benefit for which the tax is paid.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Holden v. Comm'r
(4×)
axation is not so much concerned with the refinements 210 of title as it is with actual command over the property taxed--the actual benefit for which the tax is paid.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Graffia v. Comm'r
(4×)
income that is subject to a man's unfettered command and that he is free to enjoy at his own opinion may be taxed to him as his income, whether he sees fit to enjoy it or not
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Olson v. Comm'r
(3×)
taxation is not so much concerned with the refinements of title as it is with actual command over the property taxed
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
GALE v. COMMISSIONER
(3×)
the income that is subject to a man's unfettered command and that he is free to enjoy at his own option may be taxed to him as his income, whether he sees fit to enjoy 84 it or not.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Seminole Thriftway, Inc. v. United States
(3×)
tjaxation is not so much concerned with the refinements of title as it is with actual command over the property taxed .
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Steven H. Toushin
(3×)
income that is subject to a man's unfettered command and that he is free to enjoy at his own option may be taxed to him as his income, whether he sees fit to enjoy it or not
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Herbert L. Sperling and Janice Sperling v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(6×)
the income that is subject to a man's unfettered command and that he is free to enjoy at his own option may be taxed to him as his income, whether he sees fit to enjoy it or not.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hart v. Commissioner
the income that is subject to a man's unfettered command and that he is free to enjoy at his own option may be taxed to him as his income, whether he sees fit to enjoy it or not.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Grynberg
(3×)
ubstance over form analysis applies to gift tax, as well as to income tax, cases.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alvie N. Paschall & Patricia C. Paschall
“The income that is subject to a man’s unfettered command and that he is free to enjoy at his own option may be taxed to him as his income, whether he sees fit to enjoy it or not.” Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
3M Company and Subsidiaries
(2×)
“The income that is subject to a man’s unfettered command and that he is free to enjoy at his own option may be taxed to him as his income, whether he sees fit to enjoy it or not.” Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nice v. United States
The parties eventually separated, and each spouse maintained exclusive use and control of only one of the accounts.25 The taxpayer, Mr. Roberts, did not have a checkbook for, write checks on, or make withdrawals from the account that his estranged 21 Id. at § 1.451-2(a). 22 Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930). 23 Doc. 35-1 at 11. 24 141 T.C. 569 (2013). 25 Id. at 571 . wife maintained exclusive control over, nor did he receive that account’s bank statements.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Celia Mazzei v. Commissioner
(2×)
As the Supreme Court has stated: “The crucial question remains whether the assignor retains sufficient power and control over the assigned property or over receipt of the income to make it reasonable to treat him as the recipient of the income for tax purposes.” Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 604 (1948). “[T]axation is not so much concerned with the refinements of title as it is with actual command over the property taxed--the actual benefit for which the tax is paid.” Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930). 33 (...continued) income taxation”, id. at 434 , a principle fir…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Webber v. Commissioner
And “ownership” for Federal tax purposes, as the Court stated in Griffiths v. Helvering, 308 U.S. 355, 357-358 (1939), means ownership in a real, substantial sense: We cannot too often reiterate that “taxation is not so much concerned with the refinements of title as it is with actual command over the property taxed' — the actual benefit for which the tax is paid.” Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Stanley L. & Ruth A. Alexander v. Commissioner
See Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112, 119 (1940); Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930); cf. Commissioner v. P. G.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Boulware v. United States
The point, again, is that “taxation is not so much concerned with the refinements of title as it is with actual command over the property taxed — the actual benefit for which the tax is paid.” Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U. S. 376, 378 (1930); see also Griffiths v. Commissioner, 308 U. S. 355, 358 (1939). 8 B Miller’s view that a criminal defendant may not treat a distribution as a return of capital without evidence of a eor *431 responding contemporaneous intent sits uncomfortably not only with the tax law’s economic realism, but with the particular wording of §§ 301 and 316(a), as wel…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United Airlines Inc v. US Bank Nat'l Assoc
E.g., Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 376-77 (1930); Hornung v. Comm’r, 47 T.C. 428, 433-34 (1967).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Edward R. Arevalo v. Commissioner
Grodt & McKay Realty, Inc. v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1221, 1236 (1981) (quoting Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930)); see also United States v. W.H.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tenneco Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue
“If a man directed his bank to pay over income as received to a servant or friend, until further orders, no one would doubt that he could be taxed upon the amounts so paid.” State Tax Commn. v. Fitts, 340 Mass. 575, 580 (1960), quoting from Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Visco v. Commissioner IRS
Transcript of proceedings in United States Tax Court on Tuesday, January 19, 1999. 5 command and . . . he is free to enjoy [it] at his option[, it] may be taxed to him as income, whether he sees fit to enjoy it or not.' " Leavens v. CIR, 467 F.2d 809 , 813 (3d Cir. 1972) (quoting Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 , 50 S.Ct. 336, 337 (1930)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Eldon R. Kenseth and Susan M. Kenseth v. Commissioner
As the Supreme Court stated in Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. at 604 : The crucial question remains whether the assignor retains sufficient power and control over the assigned property or over receipt of the income to make it reasonable to treat him as the recipient of the income for tax purposes. * * * Or, as the Supreme Court wrote in Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930) (revocable trust created by husband for benefit of wife and children treated as invalid assignment of income): taxation is not so much concerned with the refinements of title as it is with actual command over the pr…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
AJF Transportation Consultants, Inc. v. Commissioner
Generally, "income that is subject to a man's unfettered command and that he is free to enjoy at his own option may be taxed to him as his income, whether he sees fit to enjoy it or not." Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. James L. Newman
Rather, because "taxation is not so much concerned with the refinements of title as it is with actual command over the property taxed--the actual benefit for which the tax is paid," Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930), the government need only show that the recipient 13 has such control over [the funds] that, as a practical matter, he derives readily realizable economic value from it. " 'That occurs when cash, as here, is delivered by its owner to the taxpayer in a manner which allows the recipient freedom to dispose of it at will, even though it may have been obtained by fraud and his…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard Hittleman, Linda Hittleman v. Commissioner Internal Revenue Service
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. at 605 (quoting Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. v. Commissioner
Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930); Palmer v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 684, 691-692 (1974), affd. 523 F.2d 1308 (8th Cir. 1975).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hulter v. Commissioner
In Frank Lyon Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 561 (1978), the Supreme Court summarized the principles underlying this doctrine as follows: This Court, almost 50 years ago, observed that “taxation is not so much concerned with the refinements of title as it is with actual command over the property taxed — the actual benefit for which the tax is paid.” Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Grant Creek Water Works, Ltd. v. Commissioner
Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bailey v. Commissioner
“Taxation is not so much concerned with the refinements of title as it is with actual command over the property taxed — the actual benefit for which the tax is paid.” Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reinberg v. Commissioner
“Taxation is not so much concerned with the refinements of title as it is with actual command over the property taxed — the actual benefit for which the tax is paid.” Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Duque
In the words of Justice Holmes: “The income that is subject to a man’s unfettered command and that he is free to enjoy at his own option may be taxed to him as his income, whether he sees fit to enjoy it or not.” Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 [ 50 S.Ct. 336, 337 , 74 L.Ed. 916 ] (1930).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Durkin v. Commissioner
Lazarus Co., 308 U.S. 252 (1939); Law v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 1065 (1986); Hilton v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 305 (1980), affd. 671 F.2d 316 (9th Cir. 1982); Miller v. Commissioner, supra at 767. “[Tjaxation is not so much concerned with the refinements of title as it is with actual command over the property taxed — the actual benefit for which the tax is paid.” Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tolwinsky v. Commissioner
Lazarus Co., 308 U.S. 252 (1939); Hilton v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 305 (1980), affd. 671 F.2d 316 (9th Cir. 1982); Miller v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 767 (1977). “[T]axation is not so much concerned with the refinements of title as it is with actual command over the property taxed — the actual benefit for which the tax is paid.” Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Paccar, Inc. v. Commissioner
The Supreme Court in Frank Lyon Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 561, 573 (1978), has clearly set forth the principles to be followed in deciding this issue: This Court, almost 50 years ago, observed that "taxation is not so much concerned with the refinements of title as it is with actual command over the property taxed — the actual benefit for which the tax is paid.” Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 [ 50 S. Ct. 336 , 74 L.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Skripak v. Commissioner
Although we look beyond bare legal title (see Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930)), it is the right to beneficial enjoyment of the property, and not the actual exercise of this right, that determines whether a taxpayer is to be recognized as the owner of property for Federal tax purposes.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Arthur L. Christoffersen and Theresa A. Christoffersen v. United States
As stated by the Supreme Court in Grif-fiths v. Commissioner, 308 U.S. 355, 357-58 , 60 S.Ct. 277, 278 , 84 L.Ed. 319 (1939): We cannot too often reiterate that “taxation is not so much concerned with the refinements of title as it is with actual command over the property taxed— the actual benefit for which the tax is paid.” Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 [ 50 S.Ct. 336 , 74 L.Ed. 916 ].
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Miedaner v. Commissioner
Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ellison v. Commissioner
As was said in Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930), "taxation is not so much concerned with the refinements of title as it is with actual command over the property taxed — the actual benefit for which the tax is paid.” Because, in substance, the buyer-partnerships used the "reserved” rents which they earned by application of their capital and labor to discharge part of the consideration for the apartment complexes, the rents are taxable to petitioners as members of those partnerships.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Abramo v. Commissioner
(2×)
Our careful rereading of Lester shows that the Supreme Court intended section 71(a) and the doctrine of Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930), 3 to apply only when the parties were not sufficiently specific in fixing amounts payable for child support, regardless of amounts actually received by the minor children.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Frank Lyon Co. v. United States
(2×)
II This Court, almost 50 years ago, observed that “taxation is not so much concerned with the refinements of title as it is with actual command over the property taxed- — the actual benefit for which the tax is paid.” Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U. S. 376, 378 (1930).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Palmer v. Commissioner
Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930); see also Commissioner v. P. G.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pauline Keinath, Transferee of Assets of Cargill MacMillan Transferor v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Cargill MacMillan Jr., Transferee of Assets of Cargill MacMillan Transferor v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Whitney MacMillan Transferee of Assets of Cargill MacMillan Transferor v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Pauline W. MacMillan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Cargill MacMillan 1967 Trust v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
In Estate of Sanford v. Commissioner, 308 U.S. 39, 42-43 , 60 S.Ct. 51, 55 , 84 L.Ed. 20 (1939), the Supreme Court in construing an earlier gift tax statute where the Government was unable to determine which construction of the statute would be most advantageous to it from the point of revenue collected said: "When the gift tax was enacted Congress was aware that the essence of a transfer is the passage of control over the economic benefits of property rather than any technical changes in its title." In discussing the taxable event of the relinquishment of the power of revocation as distinguis…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Keinath v. Commissioner
In Estate of Sanford v. Commissioner, 308 U.S. 39, 42-43 , 60 S.Ct. 51, 55 , 84 L.Ed. 20 (1939), the Supreme Court in construing an earlier gift tax statute where the Government was unable to determine which construction of the statute would be most advantageous to it from the point of revenue collected said: “When the gift tax was enacted Congress was aware that the essence of a transfer is the passage of control over the economic benefits of property rather than any technical changes in its title.” In discussing the taxable event of the relinquishment of the power of revocation as distin…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Krause v. Commissioner
As the Supreme Court stated in Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930): income that is subject to a man’s unfettered command and that he is free to enjoy at his own option may he taxed to him as his income, whether he sees fit to enjoy it or not.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Commissioner v. First Security Bank of Utah, N. A.
(4×)
"The income that is subject to a man's unfettered command and that he is free to enjoy at his own option may be taxed to him as his income, whether he sees fit to enjoy it or not." Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U. S. 376, 378 (1930).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gray v. Commissioner
Commissioner v. Court Holding Co., 324 U.S. 331 (1945); Higgins v. Smith, 308 U.S. 473 (1940); Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935). “[T]axation is not so much concerned with the refinements of title as it is with actual command over the property taxed — the actual benefit for which the tax is paid.” Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930). “[A]nd it makes no difference that ‘command’ may be exercised through specific retention of legal title or the creation of a new equitable but controlled interest, or the maintenance of effective benefit through the interposition of a s…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Talberth v. Commissioner
We are obliged to enforce this mandate of the Congress. iOne of the basic precepts of the income tax law is that “[t]'he income that is Subject to a man’s unfettered command and that he is free to enjoy at his own option may be taxed to him as his income, whether he sees fit to enjoy it or n'ot.” Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930), Under the type of agreement here, the wife is free to spend the monies paid under the agreement as she sees fit. * * * Including the entire payments in the wife’s gross income under such circumstances, therefore, comports with the underlying philoso…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Fender Sales, Inc., Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Donald D. And Jean Randall, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Esther Fender, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Jean E. Randall, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Donald D. Randall, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. E. Leo Fender
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Ed. 918 ]; Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U. S. 376, 378 [ 50 S.Ct. 336 , 74 L.Ed. 916 ].
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commissioner v. Fender Sales, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Ed. 918 ]; Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U. S. 376, 378 [ 50 S.Ct. 336 , 74 L.Ed. 916 ].
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Corliss
v.
Bowers, Collector of Internal Revenue
v.
Bowers, Collector of Internal Revenue
344.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 28, 1930.
Mr. Joseph M. Hartfield, with whom Messrs. Russell D. Morrill and A. C. Newlin were on the brief, for petitioner., Solicitor General Hughes, with whom Assistant Attorney General Youngquist, Messrs. Sewall Key and J. Louis Monarch, Special Assistants to the Attorney General, Clarence M. Charest, General Counsel, and Frederick W. Dewart, Special Attorney, Bureau of Internal Revenue, were on the brief, for respondent., Messrs. Marcel E. Cerf, B. E. Within, and Henry Robinson filed a brief as amici curiae, by special leave of Court.
Holmes.
Cited by 845 opinions | Published
[*377] Mr. Justice Holmes
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit to recover the amount of an income tax paid by the plaintiff, the petitioner, under the Revenue Act of 1924, June 2, 1924, c. 234, § 219, (g) (h), 43 Stat. 253, 277. (U. S. C., Tit. 26, § 960.) The complaint was dismissed by the District Court, 30 F. (2d) 135, and the judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, 34 F. (2d) 656. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court.
The question raised by the petitioner is whether the above section of the Revenue Act can be applied constitutionally to him upon the following facts. In 1922 he transferred the fund from which arose the income in respect of which the petitioner was taxed, to trustees, in trust to pay the income to his wife for life with remainder over to their children. By the instrument creating the trust the petitioner reserved power “to modify or alter in any manner, or revoke in whole or in part, this indenture and the trusts then existing, and the estates and interests in property hereby created ” &c. It is not necessary to quote more words because there can be no doubt that the petitioner fully reserved the power at any moment to abolish or change the trust at his will. The statute referred to provides that “ when the grantor of a trust has, at any time during the taxable year, . . . the power to revest in himself title to any part of the corpus of the trust, then the income of such part of the trust for such taxable year shall be included in computing the net income of the grantor.” § 219 (g) with other similar provisions as to income in § 219 (h). There can be no doubt either that the statute purports to tax the plaintiff in this case. But the net income for 1924 was paid over to the petitioner’s wife and the petitioner’s argument is that however it might have been in different circumstances[*378] the income never was his and he cannot be taxed for it. The legal estate was in the trustee and the equitable interest in the wife.
But taxation is not so much concerned with the refinements of title as it is with actual command over the property taxed — the actual benefit for which the tax is paid. If a man directed his bank to pay over income as received to a servant or friend, until further orders, no one would doubt that he could be taxed upon the amounts so paid. It is answered that in that case he would have a title, whereas here he did not. But from the point of view of taxation there would be no difference. The title would merely mean á right to stop the payment before it took place. The same right existed here although it is not called a title but is called a power. The acquisition by the wife of the 'income became complete only when the plaintiff failed to exercise the power that he reserved. Saltonstall v. Saltonstall, 276 U. S. 260, 271. Chase National Bank v. United States, 278 U. S. 327. Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 278 U. S. 339. Still speaking with reference to taxation, if a man disposes of a fund in such a way that another is allowed to enjoy the income which it is in the power of the first to appropriate it does not matter whether the permission is given by assent or by failure to express dissent. The income that is subject to a man’s unfettered command and that he is free to enjoy at his own option may be taxed to him as his income, whether he sees fit to enjoy it or not. We consider the case too clear to need help from the local law of New York or from arguments based on the power of Congress to prevent escape from taxes or surtaxes by devices that easily might be applied to that end.
Judgment affirmed.
The Chief Justice took no part in this case.