Supreme Court of the United States, 1941

Electro-Chemical Engraving Co. v. Commissioner

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided January 6, 1941 · Stone, Roberts

311 U.S. 513; 61 S. Ct. 372; 85 L. Ed. 308; 1941 U.S. LEXIS 1275; 1 C.B. 380; 24 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1086 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. George P. Halperin, with whom Mr. Bernard S. Barron was on the brief, for petitioner., Mr. Norman D. Keller, with whom Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Mr. Sewall Key were on the brief, for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

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

Jamison v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1947)
Gordon v. Commissioner (United States Board of Tax Appeals 1942)
Gordon v. Commissioner (United States Board of Tax Appeals 1942)
Stamler v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (3d Cir. 1944)
Blum v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (2d Cir. 1943)
Hawaiian Gas Products v. Commissioner of Int. Rev. (9th Cir. 1942)
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Green (3d Cir. 1942)
United States v. Armature Rewinding Co. (8th Cir. 1942)
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Abramson (2d Cir. 1942)
Burger-Phillips Co. v. Commissioner (5th Cir. 1942)
Helvering v. Jones (8th Cir. 1941)
Kieselbach v. Commissioner (United States Board of Tax Appeals 1941)
Commissioner v. Davies (9th Cir. 1941)
Larus v. Commissioner (2d Cir. 1941)
Commissioner v. Paulson (8th Cir. 1941)
Commissioner v. Bookstein (6th Cir. 1941)
Coleman v. Kelly (District Court, D. New Jersey 1941)
Colonial Sav. Asso. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1985)
Danenberg v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1979)
Millar v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1977)
R. O'Dell & Sons Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Rev. (3d Cir. 1948)
Drew v. Commissioner of Taxation (Minn. 1946)
Megargel v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1944)
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Spreckels (9th Cir. 1941)
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Peterman (9th Cir. 1941)

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 Stone

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This' is a companion case to Helvering v. Hammel, ante, p. 504.

The question is whether the loss suffered by petitioner on foreclosure sale of his mortgaged property, acquired for profit, may be deducted in full from gross income or only to the extent provided by § 117 (d) of the 1934 Revenue Act. The statutory provisions involved are those of the 1934 Act relating to capital gains or losses, particularly “losses from sales or exchanges of capital assets” considered in the Hamrnel case which are made applicable to petitioner, a corporation, by § 23 (f) (j).

*514 The Board of Tax Appeals ruled that petitioner’s.loss was deductible in full from its ordinary income. The court of appeals for the second circuit reversed the Board;-110 F. 2d 614, holding that the loss sustained by petitioner was a loss from a sale of capital assets, § 23 (j), which under § 117 (d) could be deducted from the gross income only to the extent of capital gains, plus $2,000. We . granted certiorari, 310 U. S. 622, so that the case might be considered with the conflicting decision of the court of appeals for the sixth circuit in the Hammel case, 108 F' 2d 753. For the reasons stated in our opinion "in the Hammel case we think that this case was rightly decided below.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Roberts dissents.

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