This HTML5 document contains 80 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
n14https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/302/
yago-reshttp://yago-knowledge.org/resource/
n17https://scholar.google.com/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n20https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
yagohttp://dbpedia.org/class/yago/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
n22https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/88/646/1511120/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
n23http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep302/usrep302034/
n11https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/102850/bogardus-v-commissioner/
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/
n10http://supreme.justia.com/us/302/34/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Bogardus_v._Commissioner
rdf:type
yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases wikidata:Q2334719 dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase dbo:LegalCase dbo:UnitOfWork yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Happening107283608 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity owl:Thing yago:Event100029378 dbo:Case yago:Case107308889
rdfs:label
Bogardus v. Commissioner
rdfs:comment
Bogardus v. Commissioner, 302 U.S. 34 (1937), was a United States Supreme Court case discussing, under United States tax law, how to distinguish compensation from tax-exempt gifts under § 102(a). It is notable (and thus appears frequently in law school casebooks) for the following holdings:
foaf:name
Bogardus v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
dcterms:subject
dbc:United_States_taxation_and_revenue_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Hughes_Court dbc:1937_in_United_States_case_law
dbo:wikiPageID
22744828
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
905115464
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:2d_Cir. dbr:F.2d dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbc:United_States_taxation_and_revenue_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Hughes_Court dbr:Casebook dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbr:Commissioner_v._Duberstein dbr:Lawyers'_Edition dbr:Federal_Income_Tax dbr:Gift_tax_in_the_United_States dbr:CCH_(company) dbr:United_States_tax_law dbc:1937_in_United_States_case_law dbr:Old_Colony_Trust_Co._v._Commissioner
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n10:case.html n11: n17:scholar_case%3Fcase=6961010420254847719 n14:34 n22: n23:usrep302034.pdf
owl:sameAs
freebase:m.05zr4ly n20:4aLVh yago-res:Bogardus_v._Commissioner wikidata:Q4937376
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Ussc dbt:Reflist dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Wikisource-inline dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Empty_section
dbp:dissent
Brandeis
dbp:joindissent
Stone, Cardozo, Black
dbp:joinmajority
McReynolds, Butler, Roberts, Hughes
dbp:lawsapplied
26
dbp:parallelcitations
58
dbp:prior
17280.0
dbp:uspage
34
dbp:usvol
302
dbp:arguedate
0001-10-18
dbp:argueyear
1937
dbp:case
Bogardus v. Commissioner,
dbp:courtlistener
n11:
dbp:decidedate
0001-11-08
dbp:decideyear
1937
dbp:fullname
Bogardus v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
dbp:holding
That a distribution of money by a corporation, by a resolution passed by the board of directors and stockholders, to the company's past and present employees who had no ties with the corporation, in recognition of their past service was a non-taxable gift which the company received no servers for so it was not "compensation for personal services".
dbp:justia
n10:case.html
dbp:litigants
Bogardus v. Commissioner
dbp:majority
Sutherland
dbp:loc
n23:usrep302034.pdf
dbo:abstract
Bogardus v. Commissioner, 302 U.S. 34 (1937), was a United States Supreme Court case discussing, under United States tax law, how to distinguish compensation from tax-exempt gifts under § 102(a). It is notable (and thus appears frequently in law school casebooks) for the following holdings: * A payment cannot be both "compensation for personal service" within the meaning of § 22(a) of the Revenue Act of 1928 and a "gift" under (b)(3) of the same section. Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, distinguished. * Payments made to present and former employees of a corporation by its former stockholders, acting through a new corporation which had taken over part of the property of the other, HELD: not "compensation for personal services," taxable to the recipients as income under § 22(a) of the Revenue Act of 1928, but "gifts," exempted from taxation by subdivision (b)(3) of that section.Nothing connected the donees (or the old corporation) to the donors (and their new corporation). The gifts were made, without any legal or moral obligation, not for any consideration or for services rendered, but as acts of spontaneous generosity in appreciation of past loyalty of the donees which had benefited the donors when stockholders of the older company. * When the facts and circumstances prove an intent to make a gift, the erroneous use of the terms "honorarium" and "bonus" cannot convert the gift into a payment for services. * A gift is no less a gift because inspired by gratitude for the past faithful service of the recipient.
dbp:cornell
n14:34
dbp:googlescholar
n17:scholar_case%3Fcase=6961010420254847719
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Bogardus_v._Commissioner?oldid=905115464&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
4901
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Bogardus_v._Commissioner