Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co.

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article includes a improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (January 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this message ) This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (January 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this message) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co.
6th Cir. 1916); rehearing denied by 239 F. 719 (6th Cir. 1917)
Court membership
Chief Justice Edward D. White Associate Justices Joseph McKenna · Oliver W. Holmes Jr. William R. Day · Willis Van Devanter Mahlon Pitney · James C. McReynolds Louis Brandeis · John H. Clarke
Case opinion
Majority	Pitney, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, § 38, 36 Stat. 112

Part of a series on
Taxation
An aspect of fiscal policy
Policies Government revenue Property tax equalization Tax revenue Non-tax revenue Tax law Tax bracket Flat tax Tax threshold Exemption Credit Deduction Tax shift Tax cut Tax holiday Tax amnesty Tax advantage Tax incentive Tax reform Tax harmonization Tax competition Tax withholding Double taxation Representation Unions Medical savings account
Economics General Theory Price effect Excess burden Tax incidence Laffer curve Optimal tax Theories Optimal capital income taxation Distribution of Tax Tax rate Flat Progressive Regressive Proportional
Collection Revenue service Revenue stamp Tax assessment Taxable income Tax lien Tax refund Tax shield Tax residence Tax preparation Tax investigation Tax shelter Tax collector Private tax collection Tax farming
Noncompliance General Tax avoidance Repatriation tax avoidance Tax evasion Tax resistance Tax shelter Debtors' prison Smuggling Black market Unreported employment Corporate Tax inversion Transfer mispricing Base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) Double Irish Dutch Sandwich Single Malt CAIA Locations Tax havens Corporate havens Offshore financial centres (OFCs) Offshore magic circle Conduit and sink OFCs Financial centres Financial Secrecy Index Major examples Ireland as a tax haven Ireland v. Commission Leprechaun economics Liechtenstein tax affair Luxembourg Leaks Offshore Leaks Paradise Papers Panama Papers Swiss Leaks United States as a tax haven Panama as a tax haven
Types Direct Indirect Per unit Ad valorem Aviation Airport improvement Landing Solidarity Capital gains Expatriation Consumption Departure Hotel Sales Stamp Television Tourist Value-added Dividend Environmental tax Carbon Landfill Natural resources consumption Severance Steering Stumpage Excise Alcohol Cigarette Fat Meat Sin Sugary drink Tobacco General Georgist Gift Gross receipts Hypothecated Income Inheritance (estate) Land value Luxury Payroll Pigouvian Property Resource rent Single Surtax Turnover Use User charge/fee Congestion Fuel Road/GNSS Toll Vehicle miles traveled Corporate profit Excess profits Windfall Negative (income) Wealth
International Financial transaction tax Currency transaction tax European Union Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) Global minimum corporate tax rate Tobin tax Spahn tax Tax equalization Tax treaty Exchange of Information Permanent establishment Transfer pricing European Union FTT Foreign revenue rule
Trade Custom Duty Tariff Import Export Tariff war Free trade Free-trade zone Trade agreement ATA Carnet
Research Academic Mihir A. Desai Dhammika Dharmapala James R. Hines Jr. Ronen Palan Joel Slemrod Gabriel Zucman Advocacy groups Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) Oxfam (UK) Tax Foundation (US) Tax Justice Network (TJN) Tax Policy Center (US)
Religious Church tax Eight per thousand Teind Tithe Fiscus Judaicus Leibzoll Temple tax Tolerance tax Jizya Kharaj Khums Nisab Zakat
By country All Countries List of countries by tax rates Tax revenue to GDP ratio Tax rates in Europe Individual Countries Albania Algeria Argentina Armenia Australia Azerbaijan Bangladesh Bhutan Brazil Bulgaria BVI Canada China Colombia Croatia Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hong Kong Iceland India Indonesia Iran Ireland Israel Italy Japan Kazakhstan Lithuania Malta Morocco Namibia Netherlands New Zealand Norway Pakistan Palestine Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Russia South Africa Sri Lanka Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Tanzania United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay
Business portal  Money portal
v t e

Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918), was a

was not an income recognition event until the timber was sold.

Background

In 1909, Congress enacted a tax on net income of corporations. Much of the language defining gross income in that law has been retained in current tax law. Thus, court decisions interpreting the meaning of that law may have continuing relevance.

Mitchell Bros. was a timber producer organized in 1903. Upon passage of the predecessor to current income tax law, the company became subject to tax on net income. Mitchell Bros. held various timber lands from which it harvested timber. After harvesting, the timber and land would be sold separately. The Court addressed questions of when income from timber was to be included in taxable income and how taxable income from sale of the land was to be calculated.

Opinion of the Court

On the gross income question, the Court stated in paragraph 13, "In order to determine whether there has been gain or loss, and the amount of the gain if any, we must withdraw from the gross proceeds an amount sufficient to restore the capital value that existed at the commencement of the period under consideration."

On the timing question, the Court found, in paragraph 17, that the mere harvesting of timber did not give rise to income. The Court held that income from the timber should be recognized when the timber was sold.

External links

• Text of Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918) is available from: Findlaw  Google Scholar  Justia  Library of Congress