Lucas v. Earl
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Lucas_v._Earl an entity of type: Thing
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning U.S. Federal income taxation, about a man who reported only half of his earnings for years 1920 and 1921. Guy C. Earl and his wife had entered into a contract that would potentially save a lot of tax. The contract specified that earnings were owned by the couple as joint tenants. It is unlikely that it was tax-motivated, since there was no income tax in 1901 when they executed the contract. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. delivered the Court’s opinion which generally stands for the proposition that income from services is taxed to the party who performed the services. The case is used to support the proposition that the substance of the transaction, rather than the form, is controlling for tax purposes.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Lucas v. Earl
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Earl
rdf:langString
v.
rdf:langString
Robert H. Lucas, Commissioner of Internal Revenue
xsd:integer
14563574
xsd:integer
1123375599
rdf:langString
unanimous
xsd:integer
50
<second>
17280.0
xsd:integer
111
xsd:integer
281
xsd:gMonthDay
--03-03
xsd:integer
1930
rdf:langString
Lucas v. Earl,
xsd:gMonthDay
--03-17
xsd:integer
1930
rdf:langString
Earl
rdf:langString
v.
rdf:langString
Robert H. Lucas, Commissioner of Internal Revenue
rdf:langString
All of a husband's earnings are to be taxed to husband even though husband and wife had previously entered into an agreement under which all earnings of husband and wife “shall be treated and considered and hereby is declared to be received, held, taken, and owned by us as joint tenants, and not otherwise, with the right of survivorship.”
rdf:langString
Lucas v. Earl
rdf:langString
Holmes
rdf:langString
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning U.S. Federal income taxation, about a man who reported only half of his earnings for years 1920 and 1921. Guy C. Earl and his wife had entered into a contract that would potentially save a lot of tax. The contract specified that earnings were owned by the couple as joint tenants. It is unlikely that it was tax-motivated, since there was no income tax in 1901 when they executed the contract. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. delivered the Court’s opinion which generally stands for the proposition that income from services is taxed to the party who performed the services. The case is used to support the proposition that the substance of the transaction, rather than the form, is controlling for tax purposes.
rdf:langString
Hughes
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
6354