Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
United States v. Malcolm
United States v. Malcolm, 282 U.S. 792 (1931)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1931-01-19
- Topic
- general
282 U.S. 792 (1931) UNITED STATES v. MALCOLM. No. 512. Supreme Court of United States. Submitted January 12, 1931.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Malcolm. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 180 opinions
Headnotes
- Tax Law — Income Under the Revenue Act of 1928, the entire community income of a husband and wife domiciled in California need not be returned, and the income tax thereon need not be paid, by the husband alone. 282 U.S. 792 (1931)
- Tax Law — Income Under § 161(a) of the California Civil Code, a wife has such an interest in the community income that she should separately report and pay the tax on one-half of that income. 282 U.S. 792 (1931)
UNITED STATESv. MALCOLM,282 U.S. 792(1931)
51 S.Ct. 184
UNITED STATESv. MALCOLM.
CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
No. 512.
Submitted January 12, 1931.
Decided January 19, 1931.
The certificate from the court below stated the facts as
follows:
"Robert K. Malcolm and Esther Jarrett Malcolm are husband and
wife and citizens of the United States.
Page 793
Since October 1, 1920, they have continuously maintained their
domicile in the State of California. During the year 1928, Robert
Malcolm received a salary of $3,600 for personal services
rendered as an officer of the Liberty Farms Company, a California
corporation. Under the laws of the State of California, this
income was community property. On March 1, 1929, the husband and
wife filed separate returns of their income for federal
income-tax purposes. Each reported one-half of the salary of
$3,600 received in 1928 by the husband, and each fully paid the
amount shown to be due on the return. It is admitted that all
income taxes due from either husband or wife for the year 1928
have been fully paid, if, as a matter of law, they had a lawful
right to make such separate returns under the provisions of §§
11, 12, and 51 of the Revenue Act of 1928.
"After the husband had filed his income-tax return for the
calendar year, 1928, as set out above, the Commissioner, upon an
audit and examination, determined that his return was incorrect
in that the salary of $3,600 should have been reported by the
husband alone, and an income tax paid thereon by him, instead of
both husband and wife reporting it at $1,800 on each return.
Accordingly the Commissioner determined against the husband a
deficiency in income tax amounting to $18.39. An assessment in
this amount was then made and collected from the husband, the
plaintiff herein, together with interest amounting to $1.12. A
claim for refund was thereafter filed and rejected by the
Commissioner. From a judgment for this amount in plaintiff's
favor, the defendant has appealed."
The questions certified were as follows:
"1. Under the applicable provisions of the Revenue Act of 1928
must the entire community income of a husband and wife domiciled
in California be returned and the income tax thereon be paid by
the husband?
Page 794
"2. Has the wife under § 161(a) of the Civil Code of
California such an interest in the community income that she
should separately report and pay tax on one-half of such income?"