Commissioner v. Giannini
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
129 F.2d 638 (1942)
- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
Facts
Giannini (plaintiff) served as the Director and President of Bancitaly Corporation. In 1927, the Board of Directors approved a compensation plan for Giannini, who had worked without compensation until that year. Giannini was to receive 5% of the corporations’ net profits for each year beginning in January 1927. The corporation designated $445,704.20 as Giannini’s 5% portion of net profits from January 1 to July 22 of that year. Upon learning he would receive that amount, Giannini refused to accept his salary for the rest of the year. He instead suggested that the corporation put the money to better use. The Board of Directors subsequently adopted a resolution recognizing Giannini’s refusal to accept the remainder of his salary for 1927 and designating Giannini’s salary from July 23, 1927 to January 20, 1928 as a donation to the University of California. Giannini’s salary for that period of time amounted to $1,357,607.40. Giannini never received any portion off the remainder of his salary and did not participate in arranging the donation to the University of California. Giannini and his wife did not report the $1,357,607.40 as income. The Commissioner (defendant) determined that they should have reported the sum. The Board of Tax Appeals ruled that Giannini and his wife properly excluded the sum from their income.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stephens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
