Francais | English | Espanõl

Commissioner v. Wilcox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Commissioner v. Wilcox<tr style="text-align: center;"><td colspan="2">Image:Seal of the United States Supreme Court.png

Supreme Court of the United States</td></tr>

Argued January 8, 1946
Decided February 25, 1946
<tr valign=top><td style="font-size: smaller;">Full case name: </td><td style="font-size: smaller;">Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Wilcox, et al.</td></tr> <tr valign=top><td style="font-size: smaller;">Citations: </td><td style="font-size: smaller;">327 U.S. 404; 66 S. Ct. 546; 90 L. Ed. 752; 1946 U.S. LEXIS 3084; 46-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9188; 34 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 811; 1946-1 C.B. 6; 166 A.L.R. 884; 1946 P.H. P72,014</td></tr> <tr valign=top><td style="font-size: smaller; valign: top;">Prior history: </td><td style="font-size: smaller;">Certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit</td></tr>
Holding
Court membership
Chief Justice: Harlan Fiske Stone
Associate Justices: Hugo Black, Stanley Forman Reed, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy, Robert H. Jackson, Wiley Blount Rutledge, Harold Hitz Burton
Case opinions
Majority by: Murphy
Joined by: Stone, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas, Rutledge
Dissent by: Burton
Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

<tr style="text-align: center; background: #6699FF;"><th colspan="2">Laws applied</tr></th><td>§ 22 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code</td><tr style="text-align: center; background: #FF0000;"><th colspan="2">Overruled by</tr></th><td>James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213 (1961)</td>

Commissioner v. Wilcox, 327 U.S. 404 (1946), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The issue presented in this case was whether embezzled money constituted taxable income to the embezzler under § 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.

Although the Court ruled that the embezzlement income was not taxable to the embezzler in Wilcox, the Court later overruled this holding in James v. United States.

Personal tools