ⓘ Gregory v. Helvering
Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court concerned with U.S. income tax law. The case is cited as part of the basis for two legal doctrines: the business purpose doctrine and the doctrine of substance over form. The business purpose doctrine is essentially that if a transaction has no substantial business purpose other than the avoidance or reduction of Federal tax, the tax law will not regard the transaction. The doctrine of substance over form is essentially that for Federal tax purposes, a taxpayer is bound by the economic substance of a transaction if the economic substance varies from its legal form.
Evelyn Gregory was the owner of all the shares of a company called United Mortgage Company "United". United Mortgage in turn owned 1.000 shares of stock of a company called Monitor Securities Corporation "Monitor". On September 18, 1928, she created Averill Corp and, three days after, transferred the 1000 shares in Monitor to Averill. On September 24, she dissolved Averill and distributed the 1000 shares in Monitor to herself, and on the same day sold the shares for $133.333.33. She claimed there was a cost of $57.325.45, and she should be taxed on a capital net gain on $76.007.88. On her 1928 federal income tax return, Gregory treated the transaction as a tax free corporate reorganization, under the Revenue Act of 1928 section 112. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Guy T. Helvering, argued in economic substance there was no business reorganization, that Gregory owned all three corporations and was simply following a legal form to make it appear like a reorganization so she could dispose of the Monitor shares without paying substantial income tax. Accordingly, she understated her liability by $10.000.
2.1. Judgment Second Circuit
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the Board of Tax Appeals, ruling in favor of the Commissioner. Learned Hand J said the following in the course of his judgment.
a transaction. does not lose its immunity, because it is actuated by a desire to avoid, or, if one choose, to evade, taxation. Anyone may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase ones taxes.
Nevertheless, it does not follow that Congress meant to cover such a transaction, not even though the facts answer the dictionary definitions of each term used in the statutory definition. the meaning of a sentence may be more than that of the separate words. and no degree of particularity can ever obviate recourse to the setting in which all appear, and which all collectively create.
The purpose of the section is plain enough, men engaged in enterprises. might wish to consolidate. their holdings. But the underlying presupposition is plain that the readjustment shall be undertaken for reasons germane to the conduct of the venture in hand. To dodge the shareholders taxes is not one of the transactions contemplated as corporate "reorganizations."
2.2. Judgment Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of the United States also ruled in favor of the Commissioner. Although the letter of the law might arguably have been complied with, the intention of the Act was not to allow reorganizations merely for the purpose of tax avoidance. In the course of its judgment, the Court said the following.
It is earnestly contended on behalf of the taxpayer that since every element required by he transaction upon its face lies outside the plain intent of the statute. To hold otherwise would be to exalt artifice above reality and to deprive the statutory provision in question of all serious purpose.
- curiam Helvering v Northern Coal Co., 293 U.S. 191 1934 per curiam Borden s Farm Products Co. v Baldwin, 293 U.S. 194 1934 Helvering v Powers
- 293 U.S. 465 1935 Gregory v Helvering 293 U.S. at 469. 26 U.S.C. 1031 32. B.T.A. 82 1935 Id. at 87. Text of Alderson v Commissioner, 317 F
- step transaction doctrine originated from a common law principle in Gregory v Helvering 293 U.S. 465 1935 which allowed the court to recharacterize a
- Reconciliation Act of 2010. Step transaction doctrine Substance over form Gregory v Helvering Offshore Economic Substance The Economic Substance Doctrine in the
- v Fly, 135 F.2d 491 Glenn v Standard Oil Co., 148 F.2d 51. Gregory v Helvering 293 U. S. 465 Griffiths v Helvering 308 U. S. 355 Higgins v
- form, is the rule. Gregory v Helvering a United States court case that applied the principle to taxation Long - Term Capital Holdings v United States, a
- taxes. Tax evasion is illegal, while tax avoidance is legal. In Gregory v Helvering the US Supreme Court concurred with Judge Learned Hand s statement
- business purpose and economic substance doctrines established in Gregory v Helvering and in the UK through the Ramsay case. Though the specifics may vary
- business purpose and economic substance doctrines established in Gregory v Helvering Though the specifics may vary according to jurisdiction, these rules
- United States v Lara, 541 U.S. 193 2004 was a United States Supreme Court case which held that both the United States and a Native American Indian
- college funding. The law codified the economic substance rule of Gregory v Helvering from 1935, which allows the IRS to invalidate tax avoidance transactions
- exchange for help containing Hitler. The U.S. Supreme Court decided Gregory v Helvering Born: Kenny Davern, jazz clarinetist, in Huntington, New York d