Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/363-u-s-299-606585294
Timestamp: 2020-05-27 23:18:47
Document Index: 725782585

Matched Legal Cases: ['§102', '§ 61', '§ 102', '§ 61', '§ 102', '§ 102', '§ 61']

363 U.S. 299 (1960), 55, United States v. Kaiser - Federal Cases - Case Law - VLEX 606585294
Citation: 363 U.S. 299, 80 S.Ct. 1204, 4 L.Ed.2d 1233
Party Name: United States v. Kaiser
363 U.S. 299 (1960)
80 S.Ct. 1204, 4 L.Ed.2d 1233
On the record in this case, the jury, as finder of the facts, acted within its competence in concluding that the strike assistance, by way of room rent and food vouchers, rendered by a labor union to respondent, who was participating in a strike and was in need, was a "gift" within the meaning of §102(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and hence was excluded from income for income tax purposes. Commissioner v. Duberstein, ante, p. 278. Pp. 299-305.
This case presents the questions whether a labor union's strike assistance, by way of room rent and food vouchers, [80 S.Ct. 1205] furnished to a worker participating in a strike constitutes income to him under § 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954,1 and whether the assistance furnished to
this particular worker, who was in need, constituted a "gift" to him, and hence was excluded from income by § 102(a) of the Code.2
Union representatives questioned respondent as to his financial resources, and his dependents. He had no other job, and needed assistance with respect to the essentials of life. He was single during the period in question, and the Union provided him with a food voucher for $6 a week, redeemable in kind at a local store; the voucher was later increased to $7.50 a week. The Union also paid his room rent, which amounted to $9 a week. If in need, married strikers and married strikers with children received respectively larger food vouchers.3 The over-all policy of the International Union was not to render strike assistance where strikers could obtain state unemployment compensation or local public assistance benefits. But the former condition does not prevail in Wisconsin,4 and local public assistance was available only on a showing of a destitution evidently deemed extreme by the Union.
[80 S.Ct. 1206] The program of strike assistance was primarily financed through the strike fund of the International Union, which had been raised through crediting to it 25 cents of the
$1.25 per capita monthly assessment the International required from the local unions. The Local also had a small strike fund built up through monthly credits of 5 cents of the local members' dues, and contributions were received in some degree, not contended to be substantial, from other unions and outsiders. The constitution of the International Union required that it be the authorizing agency for strikes, and imposed on it the general duty to render financial assistance to the members on strike.5
that the assistance was not within the concept of income of § 61(a) of the Code, and that, in any event, the jury's determination that the assistance was a gift, and hence excluded from gross income by § 102(a), had rational support in the evidence, and accordingly was within its province as trier of the facts. We granted the Government's petition for certiorari because of the importance of the issues presented. 359 U.S. 1010. Later, when the Government petitioned for certiorari in No. 376, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Duberstein, and acquiesced in the taxpayer's petition in No. 546, Stanton v. United States, it suggested that those cases be set down for argument with the case at bar because they illustrated in a more general context the "gift" exclusion issues presented by this case. We agreed, and the cases were argued together. We conclude, on the basis of our opinion in the Duberstein case, p. 278 ante, that the jury in this case, as finder of the facts, acted within its competence in concluding that the assistance rendered here was a gift within § 102(a). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Therefore, we think it unnecessary to consider or express any opinion as to whether the assistance in fact constituted income to the respondent within the meaning of § 61(a).
At trial, counsel for the Government did not make objection to any part of the District Court's charge to the jury or the "gift" exclusion. In this Court, the charge is belatedly challenged, and only [80 S.Ct. 1207] as part of the Government's position that there should be formulated a new "test" for application in this area.6 We have rejected that contention in our opinion in Duberstein. In the
FRANKFURTER, J., concurring
In 1957, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ruled that strike benefits paid by unions to strikers on the basis of need, without regard to union membership, were to be regarded as part of the recipient's...
110 F.2d 15 (3rd Cir. 1939), 7168, Williamson v. Columbia Gas & Electric Corporation