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

United States v. Buffalo Savings Bank

• 1962 • 371 U.S. 228 • Warren Court
In the case of United States v. Buffalo Savings Bank, 1962, the Supreme Court ruled that interest on a mortgage held by a savings and loan association is taxable income under federal law. The dispute arose when Buffalo Savings Bank argued that it was exempt from paying taxes on such income due to its status as a mutual savings bank in New York State. However, the court disagreed with this interpretation and upheld an earlier decision made by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals which stated that...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 Warren Court
Term: 1962
Docket: 96
371 U.S. 228
83 S. Ct. 314
9 L. Ed. 2d 283
1963 U.S. LEXIS 2589
Argued: Dec 03, 1962

United States v. Buffalo Savings Bank

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of United States v. Buffalo Savings Bank, 1962, the Supreme Court ruled that interest on a mortgage held by a savings and loan association is taxable income under federal law. The dispute arose when Buffalo Savings Bank argued that it was exempt from paying taxes on such income due to its status as a mutual savings bank in New York State. However, the court disagreed with this interpretation and upheld an earlier decision made by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals which stated that these exemptions did not extend to federal tax laws. This ruling clarified how financial institutions are taxed at both state and national levels.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Buffalo Savings Bank, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 371(a) of the Internal Revenue Code was incorrect and overly broad. The dissent contended that this section should not be used to impose a tax on mortgage guarantee insurance premiums paid by a mortgagor because these payments do not constitute income for the bank. Instead, they are more accurately described as an expense incurred by borrowers to secure their loans. Therefore, according to this view, such payments should be deductible from gross income rather than being treated as taxable income for banks or other lending institutions receiving them on behalf of borrowers who pay them directly or indirectly through higher interest rates charged on their loans secured with such insurance policies.

Opinion written by Justice
Decided: Jan 07, 1963
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