United States v. Kirby Lumber Co.

Anonymous
timer Asked: Feb 3rd, 2019
account_balance_wallet $9.99

Question Description

United States v. Kirby Lumber Co.

Facts:

In this case, the plaintiff, the Kirby Lumber Company issued bonds in July of 1923, for USD 12,126,800.00. This said in the same year the firm Kirby Lumber Co. decided to purchase back some of its own issued bonds. However, the buy-back was for a lower amount than the actual original face value. In other words, it was less than the par value that the company collected at the time of issuing them. Consequently, Kirby Lumber Company achieved savings in the amount of roughly USD 137,521.30 by doing so. Therefore, the court made the argument that this amount should be reported as taxable income.

Issue:

The question in this case is whether or not, the difference realized of USD 137,521.30 as part of purchasing back the bonds in the open market is considered taxable and classified either as a “gain” or “income,” while it should be reported as such in the year of 1923, by the Kirby Lumber Company. This said the case was taken up by Mr. Justice Holmes, who ruled on this case on behalf of the court accordingly.

Rule:

Mr. Justice Holmes applied the Revenue Act of 1921, c. 136, §213(a), which clearly states that gross income includes any amounts related to profit/gains stemming from any source no matter what. Hence, he considered the USD 137,521.30 as taxable income.

Analysis:

Additionally, the Treasury Regulation further substantiated Justice Holmes’ stand, since Section 1303 stipulates that the difference of the excess of the issuing face value amount (issuing price) over the price, a firm is paying to buy back some of its initially issued bonds, is considered a taxable income or gain in the respective year. Therefore, it was clear that Kirby Lumber Co., realized a gain/income, as part of its bond transactions that were taxable. In fact, in this case Kirby’s Lumber Co. assets did not shrink, but rather produced a clear gain. Consequently, this gain was taxable, because in the year of 1923 the firm realized a gain stemming from first issuing and then re-purchasing some of its own bonds in the market, which resulted in a profit of USD 137,521.30.

Conclusion:

Applying the Revenue Act of 1921, c. 136, Section 213(a), Justice Holmes found no reason why the gain realized by Kirby Lumber Co., as part of issuing and repurchasing its bonds in the open market is not considered a profit/gain realized from any source. At the same time, the Treasury Regulation Section 1303 further solidifies the ruling that the amount of USD 137,521.30 is taxable income. In fact, since the gain represents the difference of the excess of the issuing face value amount over the actual re-purchasing price of the bonds by Kirby Lumber Co., it is classified as taxable income and taxes are owed by the company accordingly. In other words, Justice Holmes did not see any valid arguments, of why Kirby Lumber Co. should not pay taxes on the amount of USD 137,521.30.

United States v. Kirby Lumber Co.
131549172083_.pic.jpg

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Tutor Answer

RyanTopTutor
School: University of Virginia

Attached.

Running Head: UNITED STATES V. KIRBY LUMBER CO.

United States v. Kirby Lumber Co
Name
Instructor
Institutional Affiliation
Date

1

UNITED STATES V. KIRBY LUMBER CO.

2

In tax law, gross income is defined to include gains or other profits that are generated
from other sources whatsoever. In the underlying case, the issue is whether it was justified for
the court to rule that $137,521.20 gain was s...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Thank you! Reasonably priced given the quality not just of the tutors but the moderators too. They were helpful and accommodating given my needs.

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors