The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1921-03-29
TAXATION CASES
(Conttnued from, Page oneD

'IiitL,. from l;tho- or from h"lh CON
E!n,d.
This drcrn.t,"n. frequently approved
10y This court" tn" opinion ""n"lud"d.
r",".N".i ala addition III lii" tht"S income
tax decision tr.jScr"r -. Ma""mh"r'
whi"h i especially signifi"d. IN II APP
H,lrat!un /" S''h cas-" ~ "" nav"
hr-". r." definition was tn'u read:
"lrcom". muy H. defined as gain de-
rived from capital. from lah"-. or from
both combined. proviG-d il l." under
stood Ia imrIur" profits gained through
s,l;r or conversion or capital hSN' -.
1t - obvious that unless tu:S d"!:n'-
non br modified II rules ~" case At lar.
ard w:thSlanG!n@ -" arguments
heard in this cas-" We confirm" entirety
satisfied with tina; definition. Sine
the fund SO taxed waS tn" amount real
we'd from the sal" ~ stock n i?lT. l"Ss
thr capital investment a. OF March :.
1914. I; !. ralpIh," that i, waS gain
nr profit 'prndUrrd by or 'rrlvcd from
-nat investment and thereby h"Ca;n" tn"
realized gain which has been repeated
IS declared To hr taxable in"om" within
the meaning Of IN" constitutional
amendment and tn" acts Of congress.
Tie opinion quickly dismissed con
Tcniiou that the word "inr"m"" u" used
IN the sixteenth amendment did not IN
Guide tn" gain realized by Il single
transaction but only profits realized by
ono engaged IN buying and selling a. u
business
Would Defeat Purpose.
1T is sufficient I" say OF th.S conirn-
ton" the court ruled, that no such
distinction was rcroGu:z"A in III" c!r''
war income tax acts or IN the iMc"m"
tax act Of 1894. The interesting and IN
GcnuouS argument which i pr"Ss"n
upon. fails to convince us that con
struction should b. adopted wnirA
would in a large measure d"fca, tho
purpose Of the amendment"
The Two Other Cases.
The reasoning used in the case Of IN"
RvcrSon estate was held to cover fully
thu courts decision in III" appeal
brought by David NJ. Goodrich. az New
York involving taxation of profits on
investment capital. except that III on"
transaction Mr.. G"uGrich showed an
actual loss from the price he had pad
for the securities. The ruling IN"
tax aSScSSorS that the value as al
March |, 1913 which was below the cost
price in 1912 and tho subsequent sale
price in 1915. only would hc considered
was reversed by the supreme court.
The act under which the tax was
assessed prov idCs that the net lnc"m"
OF the individual shall include gains
and profits" the opinion said. Thus
Il is very plain that this statute I'M
poses tho income tax on proceeds or
personal property Ia the extent only
that gains are derived tncr"rrom and
since no gain was derived on this trans
action. TO tax could be assessed. against
the vendor"
Same Point Involved.
In the third case settled today
Walsh. collector. versus Brcwstcr-the
sumo points were considered. Decision
of Connecticut courts that tn" govern
mcat could not collect n tax On an IN
come in the value Of securities pur-
chased, and held for investment. WAS
reversed. the supreme court again MAX
ing the point that tax could only b" coy
lcctrd where the proceeds showed
profit over tho purchase price.
Elimination OF the March !. 1871" up
cot line through today'S opinions was
IN conformation with the voluntary &C
ton taken by the governments advo-
Gates during the argument "r the cases.