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

Ray Consolidated Copper Company v. United States

• 1924 • 268 U.S. 373 • Taft Court
In the case of Ray Consolidated Copper Company v. United States, 1924, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S government. The dispute arose over a tax assessment on copper ore mined by Ray Consolidated Copper Company during World War I. The company argued that it should be taxed based on its profits after deducting mining and smelting costs, while the government contended that taxes should be levied before these deductions were made. The court sided with the government's interpretation 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 Taft Court
Term: 1924
Docket: 443
268 U.S. 373
45 S. Ct. 526
69 L. Ed. 1003
1925 U.S. LEXIS 573
Argued: Jan 13, 1925

Ray Consolidated Copper Company v. United States

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Ray Consolidated Copper Company v. United States, 1924, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S government. The dispute arose over a tax assessment on copper ore mined by Ray Consolidated Copper Company during World War I. The company argued that it should be taxed based on its profits after deducting mining and smelting costs, while the government contended that taxes should be levied before these deductions were made. The court sided with the government's interpretation of Section 38 of Part II Revenue Act (1918), stating that gross income from property meant total production without any deduction for cost or expense incurred to produce such product.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Ray Consolidated Copper Company v. United States, the justice argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 234(a) of the Revenue Act was incorrect. The justice believed that this section did not allow for a deduction from gross income for amounts paid as compensation to employees in excess of reasonable salaries or wages. Instead, it should be interpreted as allowing deductions only when such payments are made wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Furthermore, he disagreed with how much weight was given to evidence provided by government experts regarding what constituted 'reasonable' compensation in this case; arguing instead that more consideration should have been given to industry standards and practices at the time. He also expressed concern about potential misuse or manipulation of tax laws if corporations were allowed excessive leeway in determining their own salary structures without adequate oversight or regulation.

Opinion written by Justice LDBrandeis
Decided: May 25, 1925
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