Court Opinion

ID: 9638872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:57:11.942757+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:10.435317
License: Public Domain

THOMPSON, District Judge
(dissenting). I am of the opinion that the normal tax paid by the obligor under the terms of the tax-free covenant of the bonds was income, because it is obviously included within the terms of the Revenue Acts of 1917 and *2341918, defining income as “gains * * * derived from any source whatever.”
I must, therefore, dissent from the majority opinion for the reasons, first, that the language quoted, being plain and unambiguous, is not open to judicial construction; and, second, that the tax paid by the obligor, being gains' derived from a definite source, the requirement of section 221 (b) of the act of 1918 that the obligor shall deduct and withhold the tax is no sufficient groqnd for holding that Congress intended that the gains derived by the obligee from the payment of the tax by the obligor under the act of Congress and the payment of the interest in full under the covenant of the bond, should not be included within its plain definition of income.