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

Tinder v. United States

• 1952 • 345 U.S. 565 • Vinson Court
In the 1952 case Tinder v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on an issue of tax law involving a taxpayer's right to deduct losses from his income tax return. The petitioner, Charles E. Tinder, had purchased stock in two corporations that subsequently became insolvent and worthless within the same year. He claimed these as capital losses on his federal income tax return but was denied by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue who argued that they were non-business debts and thus not...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 Vinson Court
Term: 1952
Docket: 113
345 U.S. 565
73 S. Ct. 911
97 L. Ed. 2d 1250
1953 U.S. LEXIS 2052
Argued: Apr 09, 1953

Tinder v. United States

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1952 case Tinder v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on an issue of tax law involving a taxpayer's right to deduct losses from his income tax return. The petitioner, Charles E. Tinder, had purchased stock in two corporations that subsequently became insolvent and worthless within the same year. He claimed these as capital losses on his federal income tax return but was denied by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue who argued that they were non-business debts and thus not deductible under Section 23(k)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Supreme Court upheld this decision with Justice Burton delivering its opinion stating that since Mr.Tinder did not acquire those stocks for profit-making purposes or as part of his trade or business but rather for personal reasons (to help out friends), he could not claim them as business bad debts which are fully deductible unlike nonbusiness bad debts which are only partially deductible.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Tinder v. United States, Justice Minton argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Court and undermined constitutional protections against self-incrimination. He contended that by allowing a witness to be convicted for contempt of court after refusing to answer questions on grounds of potential self-incrimination, even when immunity from prosecution had been granted, effectively nullified Fifth Amendment rights. According to him, such an approach would force witnesses into a "cruel trilemma" - perjure themselves; admit guilt and face public scorn or punishment in other forms (such as loss of employment); or refuse to answer and risk being held in contempt. Furthermore, he believed it was not within Congress' power to compel testimony by granting immunity because this violated fundamental principles underlying the privilege against self-incrimination – namely respecting individuals’ privacy and dignity by preventing them from being forced into making disclosures about their personal lives which they might later regret.

Opinion written by Justice SFReed
Decided: May 25, 1953
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