Eisner v. Macomber
| Eisner v. Macomber | |
|---|---|
| Argued April 16, 1919 Reargued October 17–20, 1919 Decided March 8, 1920 | |
| Full case name | Mark Eisner, as Collector of United States Internal Revenue for the Third District of the State of New York v. Myrtle H. Macomber |
| Citations | 252 U.S. 189 (more) 40 S. Ct. 189; 64 L. Ed. 521; 1920 U.S. LEXIS 1605; 1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 32; 3 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 3020; 1920-3 C.B. 25; 9 A.L.R. 1570 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York |
| Holding | |
| A pro rata stock dividend in which a shareholder received no actual cash or other property and retained the same proportionate share of ownership of the corporation as was held prior to the dividend was not income to the shareholder within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment. An income tax imposed by the Revenue Act of 1916 on such a dividend was unconstitutional even if the dividend indirectly represented accrued earnings of the corporation. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Pitney, joined by White, McKenna, Van Devanter, McReynolds |
| Dissent | Holmes, joined by Day |
| Dissent | Brandeis, joined by Clarke |
| Laws applied | |
| Sixteenth Amendment | |
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), was a tax case before the United States Supreme Court that is notable for the following holdings:
- A pro rata stock dividend where a shareholder received no actual cash or other property and retained the same proportionate share of ownership of the corporation as was held prior to the dividend by the shareholder was not income to the shareholder under the Sixteenth Amendment.
- An income tax that was imposed by the Revenue Act of 1916 on such a dividend was unconstitutional even if the dividend indirectly represented accrued earnings of the corporation.