Supreme Court of the United States, 1930

Renziehausen v. Lucas

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided February 24, 1930 · Holmes, McReynolds, Stone

280 U.S. 387; 50 S. Ct. 156; 74 L. Ed. 501; 1930 U.S. LEXIS 757 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. William, A. Seifert, with whom Mr. William W. Booth was on the brief, for petitioner., Assistant Attorney General Youngquist, with whom Solicitor General Hughes, and Messrs. Sewall Key and Norman D. Keller, Special Assistants to the Attorney General, were on the brief, for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

34 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Detroit & Windsor Ferry Co. v. Woodworth (6th Cir. 1940)
Elston Co. Ex Rel. United States Brewing Co. v. United States (Court of Claims 1938)
Algemeene Kunstzijde Unie, N. V. v. United States (District Court, W.D. North Carolina 1954)
Dodge Bros. v. United States (District Court, D. Maryland 1940)
State Line & Sullivan R. v. Phillips (3d Cir. 1938)
Herrnstein v. United States (Court of Claims 1937)
Avery v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (7th Cir. 1936)
United States v. Hardy (District Court, S.D. West Virginia 1933)
Hotel Wisconsin Realty Co. v. Commissioner (7th Cir. 1931)
J. Chr. G. Hupfel Co. v. Anderson (District Court, S.D. New York 1931)
Seneca Hotel Co. v. United States (Court of Claims 1930)
International Multifoods Corp. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1997)
Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1993)
Philip Morris, Inc. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1991)
Dunn v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1964)
Estate of Ferber v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1954)
Des Moines Title Co. v. Commissioner (United States Board of Tax Appeals 1939)
Elston Co. v. United States (Court of Claims 1937)
Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Commissioner (United States Board of Tax Appeals 1934)
Roney v. Commissioner (4th Cir. 1933)
V. Loewers Gambrinus Brewery Co. v. Anderson (Supreme Court of the United States 1931)
Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (8th Cir. 1930)
San Francisco Hotel Co. v. Commissioner (United States Board of Tax Appeals 1930)
International Multifoods Corporation and Affiliated Companies v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1997)
Brylawski v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1983)

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

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case raises the same questions as the preceding one, Clarke v. Haberle Crystal Springs Brewing Co., ante, p. 384, but was decided the other way. 31 F. (2d) 675. A writ of certiorari was granted by this court on October 14, 1929.

The good will here concerned, (treated as embracing trade-marks, trade brands and trade names,) was that of a business of distilling and selling whiskey, warehousing, and a wholesale liquor business. The Board of Tax Appeals adjudged a deficiency in the petitioner’s income tax returns for 1918, 1919, 1920 and 1922. A deduction is *389 claimed by him, as in the other case, for exhaustion or obsolescence of the good will, under the Revenue Act of 1918, (Act of February 24, 1919,) c. 18, § 214 (a) (8); 40 Stat. 1057, 1067, using the same words for individuals that are used in § 234 for corporations, and under the Revenue Act of 1921, (Act of November 23, 1921,) c. 136, § 214 (a) (8); 42 Stat. 227, 240, using the same words again. What has been said in the Haberle Crystal Springs Brewing Co.’s case is sufficient to dispose of this one, and here there is the additional fact that in 1919 the petitioner became aware that he could manufacture whiskey for medicinal purposes and did so until the Willis-Campbell Act of November 23, 1921, c. 134; 42 Stat. 222, was passed and the petitioner failed to obtain a permit under it. The evidence does not seem to warrant an alternative claim under the Revenue Act of 1918, § 214 (a) (4), for losses incurred in business in 1919, even if otherwise it could be sustained.

The only other question that seems to need mention is raised by an account headed “ Old Whiskey,” on the books of the Large Distilling Company, under which name the petitioner did the distilling business. At the close of each distilling season the whiskey manufactured and not sold was charged to this account, matured and sold to the trade. The petitioner regarded this whiskey as a personal investment, but the whole business was his, and we agree with the Circuit Court of Appeals that the whiskey was clearly a part of the stock in trade, and therefore that he was not entitled to the more favorable rate allowed by the Act of November 23, 1921, c. 136, § 206 (6), for taxes on capital gain, excluding stock in trade. The petitioner has no reason to complain of the allowance for obsolescence of the warehouses.

Decree affirmed.

Mr. Justice McReynolds and Mr. Justice Stone concur in the result.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.