Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Eldorado Coal and Mining Co. Vs. Mager

Eldorado Coal and Mining Co. vs Mager

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Mar-28-1921
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/93488

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
255 U.S. 522
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Eldorado Coal and Mining Co.

Respondent

Mager

Excerpt

.....sustaining a demurrer to a declaration in assumpsit to recover an assessment of income and excess profits taxes for the year 1917 under warrant of the income tax act of congress approved september 8, 1916 (39 stat. c. 463, p. 756) as amended by the act approved october 3, 1917, c. 63, 40 stat. 300. payment was made under protest, and the claim to recover is based upon the same contention dealt with in no. 608, 255 u. s. 509 , that the fund taxed was not "income" within the scope of the sixteenth amendment to the constitution of the united states, and that the effect given by the lower court to the act renders it unconstitutional and void. the eldorado coal & mining company is an indiana page 255 u. s. 526 corporation which operated a bituminous coal mine and mining plant which it sold in may, 1917, for cash. the company retained its accounts receivable and, prior to september 30, 1917, it distributed among its stockholders, proportionately to their ownership of stocks, the cash received from the sale, and the accounts receivable in kind. the corporation, however, was not dissolved, nor its charter surrendered, because there were unsettled liabilities against it for federal income taxes and excess profit taxes. otherwise, its affairs were wound up. it is averred in the declaration that, taking the fair market value as of march 1, 1913, of the capital assets of the company invested and employed in its business, and adding thereto the cost of additions and betterments, and subtracting depreciation and depletion to the date of sale, it appears that there was an appreciation in value of the property after march 1, 1913, of $5,986.02, and it was on this profit realized by the sale that the assessment of $3,073.16 was made which the company paid, and in this suit seeks to recover. it is obvious from this statement of the case that it presents in so nearly the same form precisely the same questions as were considered in no. 608, merchants'.....

Full Judgment

Eldorado Coal & Mining Co. v. Mager - 255 U.S. 522 (1921)
U.S. Supreme Court Eldorado Coal & Mining Co. v. Mager, 255 U.S. 522 (1921)

Eldorado Coal & Mining Co. v. Mager

No. 609

Argued January 12, 1921

Decided March 28, 1921

255 U.S. 522

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SYLLABUS

A mining corporation, upon a sale of its mine and plant in 1917, realized a profit representing an appreciation in their value since March 1, 1913. Held that the increase was taxable as income. P. 255 U. S. 526 . Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, ante, 255 U. S. 509 .

Affirmed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

Page 255 U. S. 525

MR. JUSTICE CLARKE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case comes into this Court on a writ of error to review a judgment of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois sustaining a demurrer to a declaration in assumpsit to recover an assessment of income and excess profits taxes for the year 1917 under warrant of the Income Tax Act of Congress approved September 8, 1916 (39 Stat. c. 463, p. 756) as amended by the act approved October 3, 1917, c. 63, 40 Stat. 300. Payment was made under protest, and the claim to recover is based upon the same contention dealt with in No. 608, 255 U. S. 509 , that the fund taxed was not "income" within the scope of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and that the effect given by the lower court to the act renders it unconstitutional and void.

The Eldorado Coal & Mining Company is an Indiana

Page 255 U. S. 526

corporation which operated a bituminous coal mine and mining plant which it sold in May, 1917, for cash. The company retained its accounts receivable and, prior to September 30, 1917, it distributed among its stockholders, proportionately to their ownership of stocks, the cash received from the sale, and the accounts receivable in kind. The corporation, however, was not dissolved, nor its charter surrendered, because there were unsettled liabilities against it for federal income taxes and excess profit taxes. Otherwise, its affairs were wound up.

It is averred in the declaration that, taking the fair market value as of March 1, 1913, of the capital assets of the company invested and employed in its business, and adding thereto the cost of additions and betterments, and subtracting depreciation and depletion to the date of sale, it appears that there was an appreciation in value of the property after March 1, 1913, of $5,986.02, and it was on this profit realized by the sale that the assessment of $3,073.16 was made which the company paid, and in this suit seeks to recover.

It is obvious from this statement of the case that it presents in so nearly the same form precisely the same questions as were considered in No. 608, Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, ante, 255 U. S. 509 , that further discussion of them is unnecessary, and, on the authority of that case, the judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE HOLMES and MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, because of prior decisions of the Court, concur only in the judgment.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial