Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Gordon

391 U.S. 83 (1968)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Gordon

United States Supreme Court
391 U.S. 83 (1968)

Facts

American Telephone and Telegraph Company held 90 percent of the stock of its subsidiary, Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company (Pacific). Pacific was divided, and operations in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho were transferred into Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company (Northwest). Operations in California remained in Pacific. The spin-off plan initially transferred about 57 percent of the Northwest stock to shareholders of Pacific in 1961, with the remainder expected to be sold within three years, as capital was needed, at a price determined by the board of directors. The remaining 43 percent of the shares were distributed two years later. Gordon (plaintiff) was a minority shareholder of Pacific. In 1961, Gordon exercised rights to purchase 256 shares of Northwest at $16 per share in accordance with the division plan; the fair market value of Northwest shares at the time was $26 per share. Gordon sold the remaining rights under the plan for $6.36 at the same time. Gordon did not report any income from the transactions on his 1961 tax return. The commissioner of Internal Revenue (defendant) assessed tax, contending that the $6.36 was ordinary income and that the difference between the price paid for the Northwest shares and the fair market value ($10 per share, or $2,560) also was ordinary income. Gordon appealed to the United States Tax Court, which entered judgment in favor of Gordon. The commissioner appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which ruled that the income was taxable as capital gain rather than ordinary income. Gordon appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari and combined the case with a related case from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Baan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) in order to reconcile a conflict between the two circuits.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Harlan, 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. 46,500 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
  • 46,500 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