GOODELL, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
v.
KOCH
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In Goodell v. Koch, the Supreme Court held that under Arizona community property law, a wife has an equal interest in community income that entitles her to report one-half of such income on a separate tax return, just as the Court had previously determined for Washington spouses in Poe v. Seaborn. The Court affirmed the District Court's judgment for Koch, who had paid a tax deficiency under protest after the Commissioner assessed taxes on the theory that he alone should have reported the entire community income.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mk. Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court.
This cause presents the same question as respects the return for taxation of. community income of a husband and wife, citizens of Arizona, as was presented in Poe v. Seaborn, ante, p. 101, affecting spouses who are citizens of the State of Washington.
Here Koch and his wife filed separate returns for 1927 each returning one-half of the community income; the Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed a deficiency on the theory that Koch alone should have returned the entire income; Koch paid under protest, and brought suit against the Collector in the District Court to recover the sum so paid. . The Collector demurred. Judgment went for plaintiff. The Collector appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which certified questions to us. This Court ordered the entire record sent up.
. What we said in Poe v. Seaborn, supra, applies here, if under the law of Arizona, the wife’s interest in community property is, in legal effect, the same as ill Washington. The collector asserts that the Arizona law of community property closely resembles that of California (cf. U. S. v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315); but concedes that in many respects its provisions are similar to those of the law of Washington.-
We have examined the statutes* and authorities cited, and have concluded that they present no significant differences from the Washington system. In La Tourette v. La Tourette, 15 Ariz. 200, 205, it was said: “The law makes no distinction between the husband and wife in respect to the right each has in the community property. It gives the husband no higher or better title than it gives the wife. It recognizes a marital community wherein both are equal.” As in Washington, each spouse has unlimited .testamentary power over his or her interest in the community, and upon failure to exercise it, such interest passes to the descendants of the decedent.
The Arizona Supreme Court has likened the community to a partnership. Forsythe v. Paschal, 34 Ariz. 380. The husband as agent .may not act in fraud of his wife’s rights, and if he atempts to do so, she has a remedy in the courts. Gristy v. Hudgens, 23 Ariz, 339.
Enough has been said to show 'that our conclusion in Poe v. Seaborn, supra, holds here, and that the wife has such equal interest in community income as to entitle her to treat one-half thereof as her income, and file a separate return therefor under sections 210 (a) and 211 (a) of the •Revenue Act of 1926.
Perhaps we ought also to note that what is said in Poe v. Seaborn with respect to executive construction and legislative history applies in this case. For the reasons above given, and more fully stated in the opinion in Poe v. Seaborn, dhe judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Stone took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
*
The applicable provisions (cited from the Revised Statutes of 19Í3 which were in force in 1927) are: Title 6, §§ 403-405, 865-869, 1102;. Title 8, §§ 2058-2062; Title 32, §§ 3848-3856, 3865-3869, 3881-3886; Act of February 10, 1921, Ariz. Session Laws, Regular, p. 6; Act of March 17,1919, Arizona Session Laws, Regular, p. 98.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (43 total)
-
United States v. Mitchell, 403 U.S. 190 (U.S. 1971)…e so complete that' he was in fact the owner.” 282 U. S., at 116. In companion cases the Court came to the same conclusion, as it had reached in Seaborn, with respect to the community property laws of Arizona, Texas, and Louisiana. Goodell v. Koch, 282 U. S. 118 (1930); Hopkins v. Bacon, 282 U. S. 122 (1930); Bender v. Pfaff, 282 U. S. 127 (1930). In the Louisiana case it was said: “It the test be, as we have held it is,, ownership of the community income, this case is probably the strongest of those prese…
-
William H. and Avilda L. Edwards v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 680 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1982)…erty or ownership interest in the spouse’s earnings. United States v. Mitchell, 403 U.S. 190, 196-97, 91 S.Ct. 1763, 1767-68, 29 L.Ed.2d 406 (1971). The community property laws of Arizona grant such an interest. Goodell v. Koch, 282 U.S. 118, 119, 51 S.Ct. 62, 75 L.Ed. 247 (1930). Under Arizona law, there is a strong presumption, rebuttable only by clear and convincing evidence, that all property acquired during marriage is community property. Evans v. Evans, 79 Ariz. 284, 286, 288 P. 2d 775, 777 (1955…1 / 2
-
Commissioner OF Internal Revenue v. The Chase Manhattan Bank, 259 F.2d 231 (5th Cir. 1958)…o. 223, L.R.A.1917F, 1137; 142 La. 27, 76 So. 223.L.R.A.1917F, 1137; Berry v. Franklin State Bank & Trust Co., 1937, 186 La. 623, 173 So. 126. Nabors, Insurance in Louisiana, 6 Tul.L. Rev. 515, 529 (1932). . In Hopkins v. Bacon, 1930, 282 U.S. 122, 51 S.Ct. 62, 63, 75 L.Ed. 249, involving income taxes, the United States Supreme Court carefully reviewed the Texas cases on community property, including Martin v. Moran, Martin v. McAllister, and Rowlett v. Mitchell. The Supreme Court' concluded that the wife…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 43 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Robbins, 269 U.S. 315 (U.S. 1926)