Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
CRANE-JOHNSON COMPANY v. HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 1940 — 311 U.S. 54 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
CRANE-JOHNSON COMPANY v. HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
311 U.S. 5485 L. Ed. 35·Supreme Court of the United States·1940
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
CRANE-JOHNSON COMPANY v. HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 8.
Argued October 23, 1940.
Decided November 12, 1940.
Mr. John E. Hughes for petitioner.
Mr. Richard H. Demuth, with whom Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Mr. Sewall Key and Miss Helen R. Carloss were on the brief, for respondent.
By leave of Court, Mr. Thomas H. Remington filed a brief on behalf of Bastian Brothers Company, as amicus curiae, in support of petitioner.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Black]
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Because of a previously existing deficit, petitioner corporation was prohibited by state law from distributing as dividends its profits earned in 1936. Notwithstanding this state prohibition, the Commissioner held respondent liable under the 1936 Revenue Act for surtax on undistributed profits. The Board of Tax Appeals sustained the Commissioner, and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. On a similar state of facts the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held undistributed profits exempt from surtax. We granted certiorari in both cases to resolve this conflict. The legal questions here presented are in all respects the same as those presented in Helvering v. Northwest Steel Rolling Mills, ante, p. 46, and on the authority of that case the decision below is
Affirmed.
“The directors of corporations must not make dividends except from the surplus profits arising from the business thereof ...” N. D. Comp. Laws (Supp. 1925) § 4543.
49 Stat. 1648, 1655.
38 B. T. A. 1355.
105 F. 2d 740.
Northwest Steel Rolling Mills v. Commissioner, 110 F. 2d 286.
309 U. S. 692; post, p. 629.