Chang Hsiao Liang v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

23 T.C. 1040 (1955)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Chang Hsiao Liang v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

United States Tax Court
23 T.C. 1040 (1955)

JC

Facts

Chang Hsiao Liang (plaintiff) was a nonresident alien, not present in the United States at any relevant time. In 1928, Liang became friends with Lamont M. Cochran, an American citizen then managing the Mukden, Manchuria branch of the National City Bank of New York. Cochran left the East in 1932 after first entering into an agreement with Liang under which Cochran would return to America and supervise Liang’s securities holdings. Liang and Cochran signed a contract under which Cochran would be paid $1,500 monthly and 1 percent of the profits earned as commission, which was Cochran’s sole employment after his return. Liang initially deposited $3,000,000 with Cochran’s bank, with the last deposit in 1932. In the tax year of 1946, Cochran managed Liang’s investments by an account at the Guaranty Trust Company of New York City (Guaranty). Guaranty bought and sold securities under the direction of Cochran, who exercised sole discretion as to the management of the account. In 1946, Cochran consummated sales of $442,886.83, with the gains mixed among securities held more than two, three, or five years. Liang had capital gain income. Liang reported gross income on his 1946 United States tax return of $68,050.59 in dividends and interest. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the commissioner) (defendant) found a deficiency, arguing that Liang had underpaid $41,267.73. The basis of the argument was that Cochran’s activities on Liang’s behalf constituted carrying on a trade or business in the United States. Although Liang was clearly not in the country, the government argued that as Liang’s agent, Cochran’s ongoing activities were so substantial that Liang was carrying on a trade or business in the United States. Liang argued that he left the management of the account entirely to Cochran and that Cochran was merely acting to maintain Liang’s investment account.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Opper, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership