court case brief 1 494571

U.S. Supreme Court COMMISSIONER v. DUBERSTEIN., 363 U.S. 278 (1960) 363 U.S. 278 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DUBERSTEIN ET UX. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 376. Argued March 23, 1960. Decided June 13, 1960. * 1.

Document Preview:
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
court case brief 1 494571
For $10/Page 0nly
Order Essay

U.S. Supreme Court COMMISSIONER v. DUBERSTEIN., 363 U.S. 278 (1960) 363 U.S. 278 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DUBERSTEIN ET UX. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 376. Argued March 23, 1960. Decided June 13, 1960. * 1. This Court rejects the Government’s suggestion that it promulgate a new “test” to serve as a standard to be applied by the lower courts and by the Tax Court in dealing with numerous cases involving the question what is a “gift” excludable from income under the Internal Revenue Code, since the governing principles are necessarily general and have already been spelled out in the opinions of this Court. Pp. 284- 286. 2. The conclusion whether a transfer amounts to a “gift” is one that must be reached on consideration of all the factors. While the principles urged by the Government may, in nonabsolute from as crystallizations of experience, prove persuasive to the trier of facts in a particular case, they cannot be laid down as a matter of law. Pp. 287-289. 3. Determination in each individual case as to whether the transaction in question was a “gift” must be based ultimately on the application of the fact-finding tribunal’s experience with the mainsprings of human conduct to the totality of the facts in the case; and appellate review of the conclusion reached by the fact-finding tribunal must be quite restricted. Pp. 289-291. 4. In No. 376, Duberstein, an individual taxpayer, gave to a business corporation, upon request, the names of potential customers. The information proved valuable, and the corporation reciprocated by giving Duberstein a Cadillac automobile, charging the cost thereof as a business expense on its own corporate income tax return. The Tax Court concluded that the car was not a “gift” excludable from income under 22 (b) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. Held: On the record in this case, it cannot be said [363 U.S. 278, 279] that the Tax Court’s conclusion was “clearly erroneous,”…

Attachments:

admin

Recent Posts

Economic Debate #3- Progressive Income Tax – The Homework Helper

Economic Debate- Progressive Income Tax For this Economic Debate, we are going to discuss the…

2 years ago

MKT 6120 – Marketing Management – Davis Learning Engagement #7

TOPIC: Going Global Discussion Thread 1 (initial post due Wednesday for full credit) Please note:…

4 years ago

jvjvjhvjhvhjvj

Assignment Topic This week will culminate in the creation of a narrated PowerPoint to create…

4 years ago

Students are supposed to select a technological organization of their choice.

The Assignment must be submitted on Blackboard (WORD format only) via allocated folder. Assignments submitted…

4 years ago

Increases the risk of wildfires

you need to post your 2-page information flier to share with your Final Project Group.…

4 years ago

Statistics for Technology management

discussion: Discuss the methods used at your company to measure and ensure quality products and…

4 years ago