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

Pacific National Co. v. Welch, Former Collector Of Internal Revenue

• 1937 • 304 U.S. 191 • Hughes Court
In the case of Pacific National Co. v. Welch, 1937, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondent, Welch (Former Collector of Internal Revenue). The petitioner, Pacific National Company had claimed a deduction for losses incurred due to embezzlement by its president and treasurer during tax years 1921 and 1922. However, these losses were not discovered until after an audit in 1924. The court held that under Section 214(a) of the Revenue Act of 1921 and similar provisions in earlier...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: 528
304 U.S. 191
58 S. Ct. 857
82 L. Ed. 1282
1938 U.S. LEXIS 1149
Argued: Mar 03, 1938

Pacific National Co. v. Welch, Former Collector Of Internal Revenue

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Pacific National Co. v. Welch, 1937, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondent, Welch (Former Collector of Internal Revenue). The petitioner, Pacific National Company had claimed a deduction for losses incurred due to embezzlement by its president and treasurer during tax years 1921 and 1922. However, these losses were not discovered until after an audit in 1924. The court held that under Section 214(a) of the Revenue Act of 1921 and similar provisions in earlier acts which allow deductions for losses sustained during taxable year but not compensated by insurance or otherwise; such loss must be evidenced by closed and completed transactions within taxable year itself. Therefore since no claim was made against any person who might be liable as insurer or otherwise until after close of each respective year (i.e., when it was discovered), there could have been no ascertainable loss deductible from gross income within those years.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Pacific National Co. v. Welch, Justice Cardozo argued that the majority's decision to allow a corporation to deduct losses from its income tax due to stock depreciation was incorrect and inconsistent with previous rulings of the court. He believed that such deductions should only be allowed when there is an actual loss or outlay of money, not merely a decrease in value on paper. Furthermore, he contended that allowing this deduction would open up opportunities for abuse by corporations seeking to manipulate their taxes through artificial transactions designed solely to create deductible losses without any real economic impact. In his view, it was essential for courts and tax authorities alike to scrutinize these kinds of transactions closely in order ensure fairness and prevent evasion.

Opinion written by Justice PButler
Decided: May 02, 1938
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