¶1dissenting: I think the two basic holdings in the majority opinion, expressed in the headnote, are inconsistent with each other and are both wrong. In my judgment, the stock in United Artists Corporation was intended to be and was received by the petitioner in 1919 when it was issued in the name of petitioner and delivered to the escrow agent. The stock was held by the escrow agent merely to guarantee performance of petitioner’s contract to deliver pictures. The dividends declared and paid on this stock were taxable to petitioner as such when received by the escrow agent. See Bonham v. Commissioner, 89 Fed. (2d) 725, affirming 33 B. T. A. 1100.
46 B.T.A. 385
Chaplin v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
Decided February 24, 1942
United States Board of Tax Appeals · decided 1942-02-24
Certificates for common stock of a corporation were issued in the name of petitioner and delivered to an escrow agent under an agreement providing that when certain photoplays were delivered to the… Held: further, that the amounts accumulated in earlier years and paid over to petitioner in the taxable year are dividends rather than ordinary income.
Relies on Bonham v. Commissioner
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1942-02-24
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 1977
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →