Eisner v. Macomber
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Eisner_v._Macomber an entity of type: Thing
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.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Eisner v. Macomber
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Mark Eisner, as Collector of United States Internal Revenue for the Third District of the State of New York v. Myrtle H. Macomber
xsd:integer
1147476
xsd:integer
1104385173
rdf:langString
Holmes
rdf:langString
Brandeis
rdf:langString
Day
rdf:langString
Clarke
rdf:langString
White, McKenna, Van Devanter, McReynolds
xsd:integer
40
rdf:langString
Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York
xsd:integer
189
xsd:integer
252
xsd:gMonthDay
--04-16
xsd:integer
1919
rdf:langString
Eisner v. Macomber,
xsd:gMonthDay
--03-08
xsd:integer
1920
rdf:langString
Mark Eisner, as Collector of United States Internal Revenue for the Third District of the State of New York v. Myrtle H. Macomber
rdf:langString
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.
rdf:langString
Eisner v. Macomber
rdf:langString
Pitney
rdf:langString
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.
xsd:gMonthDay
--10-17
xsd:integer
20
xsd:integer
1919
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
18443