Commissioner v. LoBue
United States Supreme Court
351 U.S. 243 (1956)
- Written by Kelsey Libby, JD
Facts
LoBue (plaintiff) was a manager at the Michigan Chemical Corporation. In 1944, the corporation initiated a stock option plan, granting LoBue the option to purchase 340 shares for $5 each. At that time, LoBue secured the options with promissory notes to be paid upon exercising the options. The options were not transferable, and LoBue had to remain an employee in order to exercise them. Between 1946 and 1947, LoBue exercised all of the stock options available to him. In all, LoBue paid the corporation $1,700 for company stock with a market value of $9,930 at the time of exercise. The corporation deducted the difference ($8,230) as an expense on its tax returns for 1946 and 1947, but LoBue did not include it as income on his tax returns. The commissioner of internal revenue (defendant) assessed a deficiency against LoBue on the grounds that the gain represented compensation for personal services that should be taxed. LoBue petitioned the tax court for review. The tax court found that the granting of stock options was meant to confer a proprietary ownership interest in the corporation and did not constitute additional compensation. The court of appeals affirmed, and the commissioner appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Black, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Harlan, J.)
What to do next…
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.