Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Burnet, Commissioner Of Internal Revenue, v. Chicago Portrait Co.

• 1931 • 285 U.S. 1 • Hughes Court
In the case of Burnet, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Chicago Portrait Co., 1931, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a corporation could deduct from its gross income an amount paid to another company for services rendered in previous years. The Chicago Portrait Company had entered into contracts with other companies that provided them with customer leads and sales support. These contracts required upfront payments which were then deducted from their annual tax returns...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Hughes Court
Term: 1931
Docket: 378
285 U.S. 1
52 S. Ct. 275
76 L. Ed. 587
1932 U.S. LEXIS 424
Argued: Jan 20, 1932

Burnet, Commissioner Of Internal Revenue, v. Chicago Portrait Co.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Burnet, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Chicago Portrait Co., 1931, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a corporation could deduct from its gross income an amount paid to another company for services rendered in previous years. The Chicago Portrait Company had entered into contracts with other companies that provided them with customer leads and sales support. These contracts required upfront payments which were then deducted from their annual tax returns over several years as business expenses. However, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue argued these deductions should only be made in the year they were actually paid out. The court ruled in favor of Burnet (the commissioner), stating that under Section 234(a)(2) and Article 23(s)-1 of Regulations No. 65 relating to Income Tax (1924 series), such expenditures are not deductible unless they fall within some exception specified by statute or regulation allowing amortization over a period longer than one year - none applied here. This decision established precedent regarding how businesses can claim deductions for certain types of expenses on their taxes: specifically, it clarified that costs must generally be deducted during the fiscal year when they occur rather than spread out across multiple years.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Burnet v. Chicago Portrait Co., Justice Stone argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 214(a) of the Revenue Act was incorrect and inconsistent with its legislative history. He believed that Congress intended to allow taxpayers to deduct losses from their gross income in any year where it becomes evident that a debt has become worthless, not just in the year when it first became partially worthless. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view on "ascertaining" worthlessness, arguing instead for a more practical approach which recognizes business realities rather than strict legal procedures or judgments. In his view, this would better align with Congressional intent and provide fairer outcomes for taxpayers.

Opinion written by Justice CEHughes(2)
Decided: Feb 23, 1932
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms