Court Opinion

ID: 4496305
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-01-23 18:14:47.292876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:04:03.667629
License: Public Domain

Smith,
dissenting: It is a cardinal principle of statutory construction that taxing statutes should be interpreted according to the intent of the legislative body enacting them. Thus, in Smythe v. Fiske, 23 Wall. 374, the Supreme Court said:
A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. People v. The Utica Insurance Co., 15 Johnson, 380; Atkins v. The Fibre Disintegrating Co., 18 Wallace, 301; Bacon’s Abridgment, title Statutes, 1, 2, 3, 5. The intention of the lawmaker is the, law.
In Helvering v. New York Trust Co., 292 U. S. 455, the Supreme Court said:
The rule that, where the statute contains no ambiguity, it must be taken literally and given effect according to its language, is a sound one not to be put aside to avoid hardships that may sometimes result from giving effect to the legislative purpose. Commr. of Immigration v. Gottlieb, 265 U. S. 310, 313, 44 S. Ct. 528, 68 L. Ed. 1031; Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Sulzberger, 157 U. S. 1, 37, 15 S. Ct. 508, 39 L. Ed. 601. But the expounding of a statutory provision strictly according to the letter without regard to other parts of the act and legislative history would often defeat the object intended to be accomplished. Speaking through Chief Justice Taney in Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How. 183, page 194, 15 L. Ed. 595, this court said: “It is well settled that, in interpreting a statute, the court will not look merely to a particular clause in which general words may be used, but will take in connection with it the whole statute (or statutes on the same subject) and the objects and policy of the law, as indicated by its various provisions, and give to it such a construction as will carry into execution the will of the Legislature, as thus ascertained, according to its true intent and meaning.” Quite recently in Ozawa v. United States, 260 U. S. 178, page 194, we said: “It is the duty of this Court to give effect to the intent of Congress. Primarily this intent is ascertained by giving the words their natural significance, but if this leads to an unreasonable result plainly at variance with the policy of the legislation as a whole, we must examine the matter further. We may then look to the reason of the enactment and inquire into its antecedent history and give it effect in accordance with its design *521and purpose, sacrificing, i£ necessary, the literal meaning in order that the purpose may not fail.” And in Barrett v. Van Pelt, 268 U. S. 85, 90, 45 S. Ct. 437, 439, 69 L. Ed. 857, we applied the rule laid down in People v. Utica Ins. Co., 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 358, 381, 8 Am. Dec. 243, that “a thing which is within the intention of the makers of a statute is as much within the statute as if it were within the letter, and a thing which is within the letter of a statute, is not within the statute, unless it is within the intention of the makers.”
Did the Congress by section 23 (r) intend to prevent corporate stockholders sustaining losses upon the liquidation of corporations from deducting those losses from gross income except to the extent of gains realized from sales or exchanges of stocks and bonds? I think not.
The legislative history of section 23 (r) of the Revenue Act of 1932 shows that that provision was designed to prevent corporate stockholders from deducting from gross income losses created through sales or exchanges “in the stock and bond markets.” The Ways and Means Committee Report 708 on H. R. 10236, which later became the Revenue Act of 1932, comments upon five proposed additions to section 23 of the Revenue Act of 1928, i. e., subsections (r), (s), (t), (u), and (v). These proposed subsections emerged in amended form as subsections (r), (s), and (t) of the Revenue Act of 1932. In presenting the five proposed additions to the House the Ways and Means Committee Report stated, p. 12:
Many taxpayers liare been completely eliminating from tax their income from salaries, dividends, rents, etc., by deducting therefrom losses sustained in the stock and bond markets, with serious effect upon the revenue. Your committee is of the opinion that some limitation ought to be placed on the allowance of such losses.
After referring to the exclusion of “dealers in securities”, as provided in subsection 23 (r) (3), the Committee report stated:
Traders or other taxpayers who buy and sell securities for investment or speculation, whether or not in their own account, and irrespective of whether such buying or selling constitutes the carrying on of a trade or business, are not regarded as dealers in securities within the meaning of this rule.
The Finance Committee Report of the Senate on this same bill (Report 665, p. 12) contains the following:
The House Bill adopted very severe limitations upon the allowance of losses from the sale of securities, as a deduction in computing net income. The provision is based upon a twofold policy: (1) Protecting the revenues from the growing practice of reducing tax liabilities by the sale of securities on which losses had accrued, and (2) preventing speculative losses from wiping out ordinary income, which represents real tax-paying ability.
There is nothing in the Committee reports which tends in the slightest to show that section 23 (r) had in contemplation losses sustained through the liquidation of corporations.
*522Section 22 (cl) of the Revenue Act of 1928 provides that “Distributions by corporations shall be taxable to the shareholders as provided in section 115”, and section 115 (c) provides in part:
Amounts distributed in complete liquidation of a corporation shall be treated as in full payment in exchange for the stock, and amounts distributed in partial liquidation of a corporation shall be treated as in part or full payment in exchange for -the Stock. * * *
The Revenue Act of 1928 contained no provision corresponding to section 23 (r) of the Revenue Act of 1932. Section 22 (cl) and section 115 (c) of the Revenue Act of 1928 were incorporated and made a part, without change, of the Revenue Act of 1932. '
Where corporations are liquidated, stockholders receiving liquidation distributions may or may not turn in their shares of stock. It is a common thing for them to do so. See Phelps v. Commissioner, 54 Fed. (2d) 289. Whether they do so or not, however, they are treated as exchanges under both the Revenue Act of 1928 and that of 1932 for the purpose of giving corporate stockholders the benefits of sections 111 and 112.
The word “exchange” in its ordinary meaning carries with it the idea of mutual agreement — a transfer of property for property in a transaction freely arrived at between two parties. See Law v. McLaughlin, 2 Fed. Supp. 601. These elements are lacking where in distributions in liquidation a stockholder has no alternative but to surrender his shares of stock and receive his proportion of the assets of the corporation distributable to him. Section 115 (c) does not provide that distributions in liquidation shall constitute “exchanges.” It simply provides that they shall be treated as in full or part payment “in exchange” for the stock.
In section 23 (r) of the Revenue Act of 1932 the word “exchange” is coupled with the word “sales.” Under the doctrine of ejusdem generis the word “exchanges” must be interpreted in the light of the word with which it is associated. Losses sustained upon sales of stocks and bonds are subject to the limitation of section 23 (r) (1). If the word “exchanges” had not been used in this provision the very evil at which section 23 (r) was aimed might have been perpetuated by corporate stockholders exchanging their stocks and bonds for other securities or other property. Such circumvention of the statute was forestalled by the language used by the draftsmen of the act.
" In the light of the legislative history of section 23 (r) I can not believe that Congress had any intention of limiting the deduction from gross income of losses sustained by taxpayers in the liquidation of corporations.
Blace, TysoN, Hill, and HakRON agree with this dissent.