Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta McCaughn v. Ludington 268 U.S. 106

← Cases

McCaughn v. Ludington

268 U.S. 106 Court SCOTUS Decision date 1925-04-13 Docket No. 733 English

Judges ■ Mr. Justice McReynolds and Mr. Justice Sutherland dissent.

Delivered by Sanford J.

Contents

Majority — Sanford J.

p. 106
McCAUGHN, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, v. LUDINGTON.

Syllabus

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE THIRD CIRCUIT;
No. 733.
Argued January 12, 1925.
Decided April 13, 1925.
Decided upon the authority of United States v. Flannery, ante, p. 98. 1 Fed. (2d) 689, reversed.
Certiorari to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals reversing a judgment of the District Court .( 290 Fed. 604 ) recovered by Ludington in an action for money paid under protest as income tax.
The Solicitor General, with whom Messrs. Rob.ert P. Reeder and Frederick W. Dewart were on the brief, for petitioner.
Mr.. William D. Guthrie, with whom Messrs. Hugh Satterlee, William R. Perkins and Ralph B. Evans were on the briefs, for respondent.

delivered the' opinion of the Court.

This case arises under the income tax provisions of the Revenue Act of 1918,[1] and presents another aspect of the question relating to deductible losses sustained from the sale of property acquired before March 1, 1913, which was involved in United States v. Flannery, just decided, ante, p. 98.

Ludington bought, prior to March 1, 1913, certain corporate stock for $32,500. Its market value on March 1, 1913, was $37,050. He sold it in 1919 for $3,866.91, which was $28,633.09 less than its purchase price, and $33,-

1 Act of Feb. 24, 1919, c. 18, Title II, 40 Stat. 1057 .

p. 107
183.09 less than its market value on March 1, 1913. In his income tax return he deducted the latter sum as the amount of his loss on the sale of the stock. The . Commissioner of Internal Revenue reduced the amount of the deduction to the actual loss of $28,633.09, and assessed an additional tax against him.- He paid this-tax under protest, and, after the usual preliminary procedure, brought this suit against the Collector in a federal District Court in Pennsylvania to recover the amount so paid. Judgment was entered for the defendant. 290 Fed. 604 . This was reversed by the Court of Appeals. 1 Fed. (2d) 689. And this writ of certiorari was granted. 266 U. S. 599 .

The case is governed by the decision in United States v. Flannery, supra. It was there, held, on the authority of Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U. S. 527 , and Walsh v. Brewster, 255 U. S. 536 , that the Act allowed a deduction to the extent only that an actual loss was sustained from the investment, as measured by the difference between the purchase and sale prices of the property. It follows that, as the actual loss to Ludington in the entire transaction was the difference between the purchase and selling-prices, that-is, $28,633.09, he was only entitled to-deduct this amount, and not the difference of-$33,183.09 between the market value on March 1, 1913 and the selling price. This is in exact correspondence with the decision in Walsh v. Brewster, supra, in reference to the second transaction there involved, in which it was held that the taxable gain deriyed from the sale of property was only the difference between the purchase and selling prices, and not the difference between the market value on March 1, 1913 and the selling price.

So under the Income Tax Law of New York, which, as pointed out in United States v. Flannery, is a substantial transcript of the Revenue Act of 1918, except that January 1, 1919 is substituted for March 1, 19 3, it was

p. 108
specifically held, in a case precisely similar to the present, that the loss deductible by the taxpayer was limited to the difference between the purchase and selling prices, although on January 1, 1919 the property had a higher value than when it was purchased, .and the loss if computed from that date would have been greater than when computed from the purchase price. People, ex rel. Keim v. Wendell, 200 App. Div. 388 .

The judgment of the District Court is accordingly affirmed, and that of the Circuit Court of Appeals

Reversed.

■ Mr. Justice McReynolds and Mr. Justice Sutherland dissent.

Cases cited