Income, Clearly Realized

 

What is income?

Believe it or not, there is a line of cases over decades developing the tax concept of income.

Some instances are clear-cut: if you receive wages or salary, for example, then you have income.

Some instances may not be so clear-cut.

For example, let’s say that you receive a stock dividend. The company has a good year, and you receive – as an example – 1 additional share for every 5 shares you own.  

Do you have income?

Let’s talk this out. Let’s say that the company is worth $25 million before the stock dividend and has 1 million shares outstanding. After the stock dividend it will have 1.2 million shares outstanding. What are those extra 200,000 shares worth?

This is an actual case – Eisner v Macomber - that the Supreme Court decided in 1920. Congress had changed the tax law to tax this stock dividend, and someone (Myrtle Macomber) brought suit arguing that the law was unconstitutional.

Her argument:

·      The company was worth $25 million before the dividend

·      The company was worth $25 million after the dividend

·      She may have more shares, but her shares represent the same proportional ownership of the company.

·      She did not have any more money than she had before.

She had a point.

The Bureau of Internal Revenue (that is, the IRS) came at it from a different angle:

There was income – the income generated by the company.  The company was “distributing” said income by means of a stock dividend.

The Court reasoned that one could have income from labor or from capital. The first did not apply, and it could find nothing to support the second had happened to Mrs Macomber.

The Court decided that she did not have income.

Let’s continue.

The Glenshaw Glass Company sued the Hartford-Empire Company for damages stemming from fraud and for treble damages for business injury.

The two companies settled, and Hartford was paid approximately $325 thousand in punitive damages.

Glenshaw had no intention of paying tax on that $325 grand. That money was not paid because of labor or because of capital. It was paid because of injury to its business - returning Glenshaw to where it should have been if not for the tortious behavior.

Not labor, not capital. Glenshaw was draped all over that earlier Eisner v Macomber decision.

But the IRS had a point – in fact, 325 thousand points.

Here is the Court:

Here we have instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which taxpayers have complete dominion. The mere fact that the payments were extracted from the wrongdoers as punishment for unlawful conduct cannot detract from their character as taxable income.”

The Court levered away from its earlier labor/capital impasse and clarified income to be:

·      An increase in wealth

·      Clearly realized, and

·      Over which one has (temporary or permanent) discretion or control

In time Glenshaw has come to mean that everything is taxable unless Congress says that it is not taxable. While not mathematically precise, it is precise enough for day-to-day use.

I have a question, though.

At a conceptual level, what are the limits on the “clearly realized” requirement?

I get it when someone receive a paycheck.

I also get it when someone sells a mutual fund.

But what if your IRA has gone up in value, but you haven’t taken a distribution?

Or the house in which you raised your family has appreciated in value?

Do you have an increase in wealth?

Do you have discretion or control over said increase in wealth?

Do you have “income” that Congress can tax under Glenshaw?