Helvering v. Eubank
Opinions
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a companion case to Helvering v. Horst, ante, p. 112, and presents issues not distinguishable from those in that case.
Respondent, a general life insurance agent, after the termination of his agency contracts and services as agent, máde assignments in 1924 and 1928 respectively of renewal commissions to become payable to him for services' which had been rendered in writing policies of insurance under two of his agency contracts. The Commissioner assessed the renewal commissions paid by the companies to the assignees in 1933 as income taxable to the assignor in that year under the provisions of the 1932 Revenue Act, 47 Stat. 169, § 22 of which does not differ in any respect now material from § 22 of the 1934 Revenue Act involved in the Horst case. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the order of the Board of Tax Appeals sustaining the assessment. 110 F. 2d 737; 39 B. T. A. 583. We granted certiorari October 14, 1940.
No purpose of the assignments appears other than to confer on the assignees the power to collect the commis[125] sions, which they did in the taxable year. The Government and respondent have briefed and argued the case here on the assumption that the assignments were voluntary transfers to the assignees of the right to collect the commissions as and when they became payable, and the record affords no basis for any other.
For the reasons stated at length in the opinion in the Horst case, we hold that, the commissions were taxable as income of the assignor in the year when paid. The judgment, below is
Reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
311 U.S. 122 (Helvering v. Eubank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.