Commissioner v. Wodehouse

337 U.S. 369, 69 S.Ct. 1120, 93 L.Ed. 1419 (1949), 337 U.S. 369 (1949)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Commissioner v. Wodehouse

United States Supreme Court
337 U.S. 369, 69 S.Ct. 1120, 93 L.Ed. 1419 (1949), 337 U.S. 369 (1949)

JC

Facts

Author P.G. Wodehouse (defendant) was a British resident who resided in France. At all times relevant to this case, Wodehouse was a nonresident alien of the United States, was not engaged in trade or business within the United States, and did not have an office or place of business in the United States. Wodehouse, an author of short stories, plays, and novels, sold serial rights to a short story and a novel in 1938 and 1941. Wodehouse’s literary agent withheld part of each payment for United States income-tax purposes. Nevertheless, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the commissioner) (plaintiff) filed tax deficiencies for those years. Wodehouse contested the deficiencies and sought a refund of the withheld amounts in question. The commissioner argued that the monies were rentals or royalties paid for the use of United States copyrights and thus taxable. Wodehouse argued that the monies were payments for the sale of an interest in property and thus not taxable. Either source of income would have been taxable under prior law, but the Revenue Act of 1936 had narrowed the definition of taxable income for nonresident aliens not doing business in the United States. The justification was that the government had difficulty ascertaining capital gains income from the sale of property by nonresident aliens, but under the royalty procedure, the government could easily figure income taxes from sources already withheld, like serial payments for the use of copyrights. Wodehouse argued that the payments were single and not serial payments, but the government argued that the nature of the payments as one-time payments did not change the nature of the payments.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Burton, J.)

Dissent (Frankfurter, Murphy, J.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 805,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 805,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 805,000 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
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 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