U.S. Supreme Court COMMISSIONER v. DUBERSTEIN., 363 U.S. 278 (1960) 363 U.S. 278 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DUBERSTEIN ET UX. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 376. Argued March 23, 1960. Decided June 13, 1960. * 1.
U.S. Supreme Court COMMISSIONER v. DUBERSTEIN., 363 U.S. 278 (1960) 363 U.S. 278 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DUBERSTEIN ET UX. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 376. Argued March 23, 1960. Decided June 13, 1960. * 1. This Court rejects the Government’s suggestion that it promulgate a new “test” to serve as a standard to be applied by the lower courts and by the Tax Court in dealing with numerous cases involving the question what is a “gift” excludable from income under the Internal Revenue Code, since the governing principles are necessarily general and have already been spelled out in the opinions of this Court. Pp. 284- 286. 2. The conclusion whether a transfer amounts to a “gift” is one that must be reached on consideration of all the factors. While the principles urged by the Government may, in nonabsolute from as crystallizations of experience, prove persuasive to the trier of facts in a particular case, they cannot be laid down as a matter of law. Pp. 287-289. 3. Determination in each individual case as to whether the transaction in question was a “gift” must be based ultimately on the application of the fact-finding tribunal’s experience with the mainsprings of human conduct to the totality of the facts in the case; and appellate review of the conclusion reached by the fact-finding tribunal must be quite restricted. Pp. 289-291. 4. In No. 376, Duberstein, an individual taxpayer, gave to a business corporation, upon request, the names of potential customers. The information proved valuable, and the corporation reciprocated by giving Duberstein a Cadillac automobile, charging the cost thereof as a business expense on its own corporate income tax return. The Tax Court concluded that the car was not a “gift” excludable from income under 22 (b) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. Held: On the record in this case, it cannot be said [363 U.S. 278, 279] that the Tax Court’s conclusion was “clearly erroneous,”…
Attachments: