Divine v. Commissioner

500 F.2d 1041 (1974)

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

Divine v. Commissioner

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
500 F.2d 1041 (1974)

  • Written by Heather Whittemore, JD

Facts

Rapid American Corporation (Rapid) was a publicly owned corporation with over 2,000 shareholders and over 2,000,000 shares of issued stock. From 1957 to 1962, Rapid offered its employees bargain stock options, meaning the employees could purchase shares of stock in Rapid at prices below fair market value. During this time, Rapid received around $1,890,000 for shares of stock worth $5,300,000. Harold and Rita Divine (plaintiffs) owned 37,000 shares of Rapid in 1961 and 40,000 shares in 1962. The Divines received distributions of approximately $18,500 in 1961 and $20,500 in 1962. Rapid told the Divines and its other shareholders that they did not have to report the distributions as dividends on their income-tax returns because Rapid’s earnings and profits were not sufficient to pay out the distributions as dividends. In coming to this conclusion, Rapid subtracted from its earnings and profits as business expenses the difference between the fair market value of the stocks it sold its employees and the bargain prices the employees paid. The Divines did not include the distributions from Rapid as ordinary income on their income-tax return. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the Commissioner) determined deficiencies against the Divines. The Commissioner argued the distributions were taxable income because they were dividends paid out of Rapid’s earnings and profits. The United States Tax Court upheld the Commissioner’s determination, holding that Rapid was not allowed to reduce its earnings and profits by the difference between the bargain prices its employees paid to exercise their stock options and the fair market value of the shares of stock. The Divines appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Waterman, J.)

Concurrence/Dissent (Friendly, 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