Lucas v. Earl

E296553

Lucas v. Earl is a landmark 1930 U.S. Supreme Court tax law case that established the principle that income is taxed to the person who earns it, regardless of contractual arrangements to split or assign that income.

All labels observed (2)

How this entity was disambiguated

Statements (45)

Predicate Object
instanceOf United States Supreme Court case ⓘ
landmark case ⓘ
tax law case ⓘ
appliesTo earned income ⓘ
salaries and professional fees ⓘ
areaOfLaw federal tax law ⓘ
tax law ⓘ
category United States Supreme Court cases ⓘ
United States Supreme Court cases of the Taft Court ⓘ
United States taxation and revenue case law ⓘ
citation 281 U.S. 111 ⓘ
coreRule Tax liability follows control over earning the income ⓘ
country United States ⓘ
court Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
courtTerm 1929 term ⓘ
decisionDate 1930-05-19 ⓘ
factPattern Taxpayer attempted to avoid tax by assigning half of his salary and fees to his wife ⓘ
Taxpayer had a contract with his spouse to share all income equally ⓘ
frequentlyCitedIn U.S. Tax Court decisions ⓘ
federal appellate tax cases ⓘ
fullCaseName Lucas, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Earl ⓘ
linked to: Lucas v. Earl
holding Income is taxed to the person who earns it, regardless of contractual arrangements to split or assign that income ⓘ
influenced Commissioner v. Culbertson ⓘ
Helvering v. Horst ⓘ
United States v. Basye ⓘ
issue Whether a contractual agreement to split income between spouses can shift tax liability ⓘ
jurisdiction United States ⓘ
keyDoctrine anticipatory assignment of income is ineffective for tax purposes ⓘ
income is taxed to the earner ⓘ
languageOfWork English ⓘ
legalSubject assignment of income doctrine ⓘ
federal income tax ⓘ
taxation of income ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. ⓘ
opinionType majority opinion ⓘ
page 111 ⓘ
petitioner Lucas, Commissioner of Internal Revenue ⓘ
precedentStatus binding precedent in U.S. federal tax law ⓘ
principleEstablished assignment of income doctrine ⓘ
respondent Earl ⓘ
result The income was taxable entirely to the husband who earned it ⓘ
unanimousDecision true ⓘ
usedFor interpretation of Internal Revenue Code provisions on income attribution ⓘ
volume 281 U.S. ⓘ
yearDecided 1930 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (2)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Helvering v. Horst → relatedCase → Lucas v. Earl ⓘ
Lucas v. Earl → fullCaseName → Lucas, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Earl ⓘ
linked to: Lucas v. Earl