The Revenue Tax Act of 1916 attempted to tax cash and stock dividends as income, thereby attempting to define income. This decision said cash dividends are income and can be taxed as income but rejected the notion that stock dividends are not income but did classify stock dividends as property which is not the subject of an income tax. Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. Here we have the essential. Nothing else answers the description.
Income is gain or profit separated from capital.
Since this case is about a corporation, cash dividends or stock dividends, we can further define income as corporate gain or profit separated from capital. There is no other definition of income, period. Now on Dauberger, Appeals of Fred R. , et al. They actually used Lonsdale to overrule Eisner. Notice by the citations, Eisner is a supreme court case and Lonsdale is a Circuit Court case.