- 10 -
cases upholding Congress’ right to provide for a currency having
a uniform legal value that did not necessarily correspond to the
market value of gold bullion which backed the currency. See
Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935); Nortz v. United
States, 294 U.S. 317 (1935); Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co.,
294 U.S. 240 (1935); Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457
(1870).
As a second ground for rejecting the taxpayers’ position in
Hellermann v. Commissioner, supra, we relied upon the doctrine of
common interpretation; i.e., defining income on the basis of the
understanding of a lay person, not an economist. See id. at
1366. Under this doctrine, the taxpayers’ gain must be measured
on the basis of the nominal gain on the sale of property, not on
the basis of a gain reduced by an inflation factor, or the real
gain in an economic sense. See id. “[N]either the Constitution
nor tax laws ‘embody perfect economic theory.’” Id. (quoting
Weiss v. Weiner, 279 U.S. 333, 335 (1929)).
In Hellermann v. Commissioner, supra, the taxpayers were
arguing that the Government’s failure to take inflation into
account to determine gain or loss resulted in the taxation of
return of capital. This is the essence of petitioner’s argument
in the instant case. However, as previously stated, the
applicable statutes and regulations do not provide that
petitioner may take inflation into account. See secs. 72, 401,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011