Marcum v. Commissioner
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- Felman v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1968)
- Emmanuelli Romaní v. Secretary of the Treasury (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1954)
- Emmanuelli Romaní v. Secretario de Hacienda de Puerto Rico (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1954)
- Hoeppel v. Westover (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1948)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
*3930 An amount equal to one year's pay allowed an officer of the United States Army honorably discharged, or eliminated, under the provisions of the Act of Congress of June 30, 1922, ch. 253, 42 Stat. 721, 722, was in the nature of a bonus or additional compensation and not simply a gratuity or gift made without consideration.
*1192 The Commissioner determined a deficiency in income tax for 1922 of $129.45.
The issue is whether an amount of $2,420, equal to one year's pay allowed petitioner under an Act of Congress when eliminated from the United States Army, constituted taxable income in the year in which received.
FINDINGS OF FACT.
The petitioner is a resident of Washington, D.C. He was commissioned an officer in the Regular Army of the United States on December 20, 1920, and was honorably discharged by elimination therefrom between December 16 and December 20, 1922. When eliminated from service, petitioner held the rank of Captain, and had been paid his regular salary in full pursuant to statutes fixing*3931 the pay for officers of his grade. After petitioner's elimination from the service, he rendered no service whatever to the Government. The service rendered prior to such elimination was compensated for by his regular pay. Petitioner has not been connected with the military establishment of the United States since the date of his elimination, except as a reserve officer. He holds no commission.
Upon his elimination petitioner was paid the amount of $2,420 pursuant to the provisions of the Act of Congress approved June *1193 30, 1922, 42 Stat. 721, 722, this amount being equal to one year's pay of petitioner as a Captain in the Regular Army. The amount of the bonus received by petitioner from the Government as a result of his past services and his elimination, the one year's pay, was $2,420.
OPINION.
LITTLETON: The petitioner's contention is that he did not, upon his elimination from the Army, really receive one year's pay, but received an absolute gift from the Government "measured by one year's pay," and that other officer, with more than ten years' service to their credit, did not receive one year's pay, but a gift or gratuity based on a percentage of their last*3932 pay.
The Act of Congress approved June 30, 1922, being an Act making appropriations for the military and nonmilitary activities of the War Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1923, and for other purposes, provided under the head "Finance Department, Pay, and so forth, of the Army," as follows:
Pay of officers: For pay of officers of the line and staff $33,890,771:
There is nothing in the Act indicating that such pay is a mere gratuity or gift, or that it is exempt from income tax. The phraseology used shows the allowance is something additional in the way of "pay."
From the wording of the Act, it may reasonably be inferred that the consideration for such generosity on the part of the Government was the past service of the petitioner; that the additional pay or compensation was for satisfactory service rendered. The one year's pay was in the nature of a bonus. But for the past service of petitioner and the possibility that similar service might be desired of him in the future, it can not reasonably be inferred that Congress would have made the provision for an additional one year's pay for petitioner, or any percentage of additional pay for other officers eliminated from the service. While there was no legal obligation on the part of the Government*3936 to bestow a bonus of one year's pay on petitioner, there was certainly sufficient consideration for so doing.
Had Congress intended that such "pay" should not be subject to taxation, it would doubtless have so indicated as it did in the World War Adjusted Compensation Act of May 19, 1924, ch. 157, 43 Stat. 125, in section 308 of which it is provided that no sum payable under this Act ot a veteran or his dependents, or to his estate, or to any beneficiary named under Title V, no adjusted service certificate, and no loan made on such certificate, and no provision of any loan made on such certificate, shall be subject to attachment, levy, or seizure under any legal or equitable process, or to national or state taxation.
From a consideration of the provisions of the Act of Congress authorizing that officers in the military service receive additional pay upon their elimination from the service, the Board is of opinion that the one year's pay in addition to his regular salary received by petitioner upon his discharge was income subject to taxation under the provisions of the revenue statute. Cf. *3937 .
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.