湯恩訴艾斯納案

湯恩訴艾斯納案
Towne v. Eisner
湯恩訴艾斯納案; Towne v. Eisner
	美国最高法院
辩论：1917年12月12日; 判决：1918年1月7日
案件全名	Towne v. Eisner, Collector of United States Internal Revenue for the Third District of the State of New York
引註案號	245 U.S. 418 38 S. Ct. 158; 62 L. Ed. 372; 1918 U.S. LEXIS 2143; 1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 14; 3 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2959
法庭判决
	基于累积利润的股票股利并非该法规的真实意图之“收入”
最高法院法官
	首席大法官; 爱德华·D·怀特
	联席大法官; 约瑟夫·麦肯纳（英语：Joseph McKenna） · 小奥利弗·W·霍姆斯; 威廉·R·戴 · 威利斯·范·德文特（英语：Willis Van Devanter）; 马伦·皮特尼（英语：Mahlon Pitney） · 詹姆斯·C·麦克雷诺兹; 路易斯·布兰戴斯 · 约翰·H·克拉克（英语：John Hessin Clarke）
法庭意见
多数意见	Holmes; 联名：White, Day, Van Devanter, Pitney, McReynolds, Brandeis, Clarke
协同意见	McKenna
适用法条
	美利坚合众国宪法第十六条修正案
	被推翻
	艾斯納訴馬康伯案（英语：Eisner v. Macomber）

湯恩訴艾斯納案（Towne v。Eisner； 245 US 418（1918）），是美國最高法院的一宗案件。在該案中，法院裁定“基於累積利潤的股票股利並非該法規的真實意圖之"收入"”。^[1]國會針對湯恩訴艾斯納案通過了一項新法律，接著該案件很快被最高法院在艾斯納訴馬康伯案（英语：Eisner v. Macomber）中推翻掉。

註釋

^ Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418 (1918). This article incorporates public domain material from judicial opinions or other documents created by the federal judiciary of the United States.

參見

美利坚合众国宪法第十六条修正案
史坦頓訴巴爾礦業公司案(Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.)
艾斯納訴馬康伯案(Eisner v. Macomber)
波洛克訴農民貸款及信托有限公司案(Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.)
對物管轄權（英语：In rem jurisdiction）(in rem jurisdiction)

外部連結

Towne v. Eisner, 245（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 245） U.S. 418 (1918)的文本可参见：Justia · Findlaw · Cornell

[1] Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418 (1918). This article incorporates public domain material from judicial opinions or other documents created by the federal judiciary of the United States.

[1]

查论编美國第16修正案判例法
範圍	Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad (1916) Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company (1916) Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson (1916)
收入	Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert (1913) 湯恩訴艾斯納案 (1918) Eisner v. Macomber (1920) Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. (1926)
應課公司股息稅	Lynch v. Turrish (1918) Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe (1918) Lynch v. Hornby (1918) Peabody v. Eisner (1918) Eisner v. Macomber (1920) United States v. Phellis (1921) Rockefeller v. United States (1921) Merchants' Loan & Trust v. Smietanka (1921) Miles v. Safe Deposit Co. (1922) Cullinan v. Walker (1923) Weiss v. Stearn (1924) Marr v. United States (1925) Koshland v. Helvering (1936) Helvering v. Gowran (1937)
應課公司收益稅	Edwards v. Cuba Railroad (1925) Burk-Waggoner Assoc. v. Hopkins (1925) Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. United States (1932) Continental Tie & Lumber Co. v. United States (1932) Helvering v. Mitchell (1938) Helvering v. National Grocery (1938) Helvering v. Northwest Steel Mills (1940) Crane-Johnson Co. v. Helvering (1940) Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. (1955) General American Investors Co. v. Commissioner (1955) Commissioner v. Gillette Motor Co. (1960)
應稅收益	Goodrich v. Edwards (1921) Walsh v. Brewster (1921) Taft v. Bowers (1929) Lucas v. Alexander (1929) Burnet v. Harmel (1932) United States v. Safety Car Heating Co. (1936) Helvering v. Bruun (1940) Helvering v. Horst (1940) Crane v. Commissioner (1947) United States v. Davis (1962) Commissioner v. Tufts (1983)
非法收入	United States v. Sullivan (1927) Rutkin v. United States (1952) Commissioner v. Sullivan (1958) James v. United States (1961)
扣除及豁免	Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad (1915) Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks Co. (1931) McLaughlin v. Alliance Ins. Co. (1932) Helvering v. Independent Life Ins. Co. (1934) Helvering v. Winmill (1938) Millinery Corp. v. Commissioner (1956) Tank Truck Rentals v. Commissioner (1958) Hoover Express Co. v. United States (1958) Cammarano v. United States (1959) United States v. General Dynamics Corp. (1987)
減少損失	Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. (1926)