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

Helvering, Commissioner Of Internal Revenue, v. Pfeiffer

• 1937 • 302 U.S. 247 • Hughes Court
In the case of Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Pfeiffer (1937), the United States Supreme Court ruled on a matter related to income tax law. The issue at hand was whether or not an individual could claim a deduction for losses incurred from selling securities if those securities were purchased with borrowed money and then sold at a loss. The court held that such losses are deductible under Section 23(e) of the Revenue Act of 1928, which allows deductions for "losses sustained...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: 1937
Docket: 29
302 U.S. 247
58 S. Ct. 159
82 L. Ed. 231
1937 U.S. LEXIS 544
Argued: Oct 22, 1937

Helvering, Commissioner Of Internal Revenue, v. Pfeiffer

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Pfeiffer (1937), the United States Supreme Court ruled on a matter related to income tax law. The issue at hand was whether or not an individual could claim a deduction for losses incurred from selling securities if those securities were purchased with borrowed money and then sold at a loss. The court held that such losses are deductible under Section 23(e) of the Revenue Act of 1928, which allows deductions for "losses sustained during the taxable year and not compensated by insurance or otherwise." This decision clarified that even though Mr. Pfeiffer had used borrowed funds to purchase these securities, he still suffered an economic loss when he sold them for less than their cost price; therefore, this loss is deductible under U.S income tax law.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of Helvering v. Pfeiffer argued that the majority's decision to tax Mrs. Pfeiffer on her entire annuity income was incorrect and unfair. The dissenters believed that only a portion of this income should be taxed, as part of it represented a return on capital which had already been subjected to taxation when initially earned by Mr. Pfeiffer during his lifetime. They contended that taxing all annuity payments without considering their source would result in double taxation, which is contrary to established principles of equity and fairness in tax law.

Opinion written by Justice LDBrandeis
Decided: Dec 06, 1937
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