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

Deputy, Administratrix, Et Al. v. Du Pont

• 1939 • 308 U.S. 488 • Hughes Court
In the 1939 case Deputy, Administratrix, et al. v. Du Pont, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a taxpayer could deduct from his gross income gifts of securities to members of his family for federal tax purposes. The petitioner argued that these were non-taxable gifts while the respondent claimed they should be considered part of taxable income as they were essentially dividends on stock owned by Mr. du Pont and therefore subject to taxation under Section 115(f) of...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: 1939
Docket: 151
308 U.S. 488
60 S. Ct. 363
84 L. Ed. 416
1940 U.S. LEXIS 1217
Argued: Dec 12, 1939

Deputy, Administratrix, Et Al. v. Du Pont

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1939 case Deputy, Administratrix, et al. v. Du Pont, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a taxpayer could deduct from his gross income gifts of securities to members of his family for federal tax purposes. The petitioner argued that these were non-taxable gifts while the respondent claimed they should be considered part of taxable income as they were essentially dividends on stock owned by Mr. du Pont and therefore subject to taxation under Section 115(f) of the Revenue Act. The court ruled in favor of du Pont stating that these transfers did indeed constitute bona fide gifts and thus fell outside taxable income according to existing law at that time (Revenue Act). This decision hinged on an interpretation which held "gifts" as separate from "dividends", even if those dividends are given away immediately after receipt; it is still considered a gift rather than dividend income. This ruling had significant implications for tax law moving forward because it clarified how certain types of financial transactions would be treated under federal tax legislation.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Deputy, Administratrix, et al. v. Du Pont (1939), Justice Black argued that the majority's interpretation of "income" in Section 22(a) of the Revenue Act was too broad and inconsistent with previous rulings by both Congress and the Supreme Court. He contended that dividends paid out from a corporation's earnings or profits should be considered income, but not those derived from capital investment or stock splits which he viewed as mere changes in form rather than actual gain to shareholders. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for relying on Eisner v Macomber (1920) case precedent without considering its controversial nature and limited application only to federal taxation under Sixteenth Amendment constraints. In his view, this led them to mistakenly equate corporate distributions made out of capital surplus with taxable income when they were actually non-taxable returns on capital investments.

Opinion written by Justice WODouglas
Decided: Jan 08, 1940
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