• Facets (new session)
• Description
• Metadata
• Settings
  • Rule: ActivityStreamsMapasEquivalentb3sb3sifpdbprdf-labelfacetshttp://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/dbpedia#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/opencyc#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/umbel#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/yago#http://dbpedia.org/schema/property_rules#http://www.ontologyportal.org/inference/rules/SUMO#http://www.ontologyportal.org/inference/rules/WordNet#http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#ldpoplwebskos-transurn:det:rdf:labelvirtrdf-labelvirtrdf-urlNone
    
  • Inverse Functional Properties: Disabled (fastest) Apply to subjects only Apply to objects only Apply to both subjects and objects
  • "Same As": Disabled (fastest) Apply to subjects only Apply to objects only Apply to both subjects and objects (recommended) Apply to subjects, objects and predicates (not recommended on big datasets) Apply to predicates only (special use cases only)

About: Eisner v. Macomber     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : umbel-rc:Event, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)

Type: ThingcaseLegal Caseunit of workLegal caseyago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCasesyago:Abstraction100002137yago:Assets113329641yago:Case107308889yago:Dividend113408023yago:Event100029378yago:FinancialGain113254985yago:Gain113254805yago:Happening107283608yago:Income113255145yago:NetIncome113258362yago:Possession100032613yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100yago:Relation100031921yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntitySupreme Court of the United States caseyago:Sum113331198yago:WikicatDividendsumbel-rc:Event New Facet based on Instances of this Class

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), was a tax case before the United States Supreme Court that is notable for the following holdings: * A pro rata stock dividend where a shareholder received no actual cash or other property and retained the same proportionate share of ownership of the corporation as was held prior to the dividend by the shareholder was not income to the shareholder under the Sixteenth Amendment. * An income tax that was imposed by the Revenue Act of 1916 on such a dividend was unconstitutional even if the dividend indirectly represented accrued earnings of the corporation.