Page images
PDF
EPUB

268 U.S.

Opinion of the Court.

MCCAUGHN, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, v. LUDINGTON.

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR 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. Robert 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.

MR. JUSTICE SANFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case arises under the income tax provisions of the Revenue Act of 1918,' 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,

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

[blocks in formation]

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 derived 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, 1913, it was

[blocks in formation]

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.

STATE OF NEW MEXICO v. STATE OF COLORADO

IN EQUITY

No. 12, Original. Decree Entered April 13, 1925.

Decree adjudging that the bill of New Mexico be dismissed and the cross bill of Colorado be sustained; declaring the true boundary between the two States; appcinting and instructing a commissioner to run, locate and mark the same, subject to approval of the Court; with provisions for transmitting copies of the commissioner's report and map, when filed, to the governors of the two States, defining the time for objections and exceptions, providing for possible vacancy in the commissionership, and equally dividing the costs of suit.

Announced by Mr. JUSTICE SANFORD.

This cause having been heard and submitted, and the Court having considered the same and announced its conclusions in an opinion delivered January 26, 1925, [267 U. S. 30],

It is ordered, adjudged and decreed:

1. The bill of the State of New Mexico is dismissed, and the cross-bill of the State of Colorado is sustained.

[blocks in formation]

2. The true and lawful boundary between the State of New Mexico and the State of Colorado consists of the following connecting lines: (a) The line extending westwardly from what is known as the Preston Monument, marking the intersection of the thirty-seventh parallel of north latitude with the Cimarron Meridian (the onehundred and third) of longitude west from Greenwich, to what is known as the Macomb Monument, as the said line was surveyed and marked in the year 1900 by Levi S. Preston, deputy surveyor, while engaged, under the direction of the Surveyor General for New Mexico, in retracing and re-marking between said Cimarron Meridian and Macomb Monument the line that had been surveyed in the year 1874 by John J. Major, astronomer and surveyor, under the direction of the Commissioner of the General Land Office; and (b) The line extending westwardly from said Macomb Monument to the intersection of said parallel of latitude with the one-hundred and ninth meridian of west longitude, as the said line was surveyed and marked in the year 1868 by Ehud N. Darling, surveyor and astronomer, under the direction of the Commissioner of the General Land Office; Provided that, pursuant to the consent of the parties hereto, the line surveyed and marked in the year 1917 by Wm. C. Perkins, surveyor, under the direction of the Commissioner of the Land Office, as a restoration of the said Darling line between the 203rd mile corner and Astronomical Monument No. 8 of the Darling survey, shall be taken and deemed to be the true location of the portion of the Darling line thus restored.

3. Arthur D. Kidder, cadastral engineer, is designated as a commissioner to run, locate and mark the boundary between the two States as determined by this decree. In running the same the said Preston and Darling lines shall be retraced and restored in accordance with the marks of the original surveys upon the ground and the approved

[blocks in formation]

field notes thereof on file in the General Land Office, copies of which are incorporated in the printed record in this cause, except that as to the portion of the said Darling line restored by said Perkins, the line marked by said Perkins shall be followed.

4. The boundary shall be marked by establishing permanent monuments thereon, suitably marked and at appropriate distances. All corners and monuments established by said Darling that were destroyed or obliterated by Howard B. Carpenter, surveyor, in accordance with the direction of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, in making a survey of the boundary in the years 1902 and 1903, shall be restored; and all new corners and monuments that were established by said Carpenter on his survey, shall be destroyed.

5. The commissioner shall include in his report a description of the monuments established by him and of the courses and distances between them. He shall file with his report the field notes of his survey and a map showing the boundary line as run and marked by him; also two copies of his report and map.

6. Before entering upon his work the commissioner shall take and subscribe an oath to perform his duties. faithfully and impartially. He shall prosecute the work with diligence and dispatch, and shall have authority to employ such assistants as may be needed therein; and he shall include in his report a statement of the work done, the time employed and the expenses incurred.

7. The work of the commissioner shall be subject in all its parts to the approval of the Court. The copies of the commissioner's report and map shall be promptly transmitted by the clerk to the Governors of the two States; and exceptions or objections to the commissioner's report, if there be such, shall be presented to the Court, or, if it be not in session, filed with the clerk, within forty days after the report is filed.

« PreviousContinue »