Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co.

Taxation
An aspect of fiscal policy
Policies Government revenue Tax revenue · Non-tax revenue Tax law · Tax bracket Exemption · Credit · Deduction Tax shift · Tax cut · Tax holiday Tax advantage · Tax incentive Tax reform · Tax harmonization Tax competition · Double taxation Representation · Unions Medical savings account Tax, tariff and trade
Economics Price effect · Excess burden Tax incidence Laffer curve · Optimal tax
Collection Revenue service · Revenue stamp Tax assessment · Taxable income Tax lien · Tax refund · Tax shield Tax residence · Tax preparation Tax investigation · Tax shelter Private tax collection · Tax farming
Noncompliance Tax avoidance · Tax evasion Tax resistance · Tax haven Smuggling · Black market
Distribution Tax rate Progressive · Regressive Proportional
Types Direct · Indirect · Ad valorem · In rem Capital gains · Consumption Dividend · Excise · Georgist Gift · Gross receipts · Income Inheritance (estate) · Land value Payroll · Pigovian · Property Sales · Sin · Stamp · Turnover Value-added (VAT) Corporate profit · Excess profits Windfall profits · Negative (income) · Flat
International and trade Custom · Duty Tariff (Import · Export) · Tariff war Free trade · Free trade zone Trade pact · Tax equalization Tax treaty
By country Tax rates around the world Tax revenues as %GDP Albania · Australia · Bangladesh · Bhutan · Canada · China · Colombia · France · Germany · Greece · Iceland · India · Indonesia · Iran · Ireland · Israel · Italy · Japan · Netherlands · New Zealand · Pakistan · Palestinian territories · Peru · Russia · Singapore · South Africa · Sweden · Switzerland · Tanzania · United Kingdom · United States
v · d · e

Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 4–6, 1918 Decided May 20, 1918
Full case name	Doyle, Collector of Internal Revenue v. Mitchell Bros. Co.
Citations	247 U.S. 179 (more) 38 S. Ct. 467; 62 L. Ed. 1054; 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1968; 1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P17; 3 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2979
Prior history	Judgment for plaintiffs, 225 F. 437 (W.D. Mich. 1915); aff'd by 235 F. 686 (6th Cir. 1916); rehearing denied by 239 F. 719 (6th Cir. 1917)
Holding
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 opinions
Majority	Pitney, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, § 38, 36 Stat. 112

Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 38 S.Ct. 467 (1918), was a United States Supreme Court case defining gross income. The case held that gross income includes the gain on sale of assets, i.e., the proceeds less cost basis. An alternative theory that gross income should be the gross proceeds, and the cost basis should be allowed as a deduction, was rejected by the Court.

The Court also held that the harvesting of timber was not an income recognition event until the timber was sold.

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.

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.

Sources

• Opinion of the court from Findlaw.com
• Text of opinion at Open Jurist