Summary

Charles Evans Hughes Lucas v. Ox Fibre Brush Company…

This compensation for past services, it being admitted that it was reasonable in amount in view of the large benefits which the corporation had received as the fruits of these services, the corporation had a right to pay, if it saw fit. There is no suggestion of attempted evasion or abuse. The payments were made as a matter of internal policy having appropriate regard to the advantage of recognition of skill and fidelity as a stimulus to continued effort. There was nothing in the income tax law to preclude such action.
Source: Wikisource

Charles Evans Hughes Lucas v. Ox Fibre Brush Company…

The statute does not require that the services should be actually rendered during the taxable year, but that the payments therefor shall be proper expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year.
It is urged that under section 212 (b) of the Revenue Act of 1918 (40 Stat. 1064, 1065) the Commissioner was entitled to disallow the deduction in the return for 1920, upon the ground that if it were allowed the return would not clearly reflect the income for that year. It is said that the basic principle to be applied is that the true net income is to be taxed.
Source: Wikisource

Charles Evans Hughes Lucas v. Ox Fibre Brush Company…

The net income in 1920, after a deduction of all expenses, including officers' salaries, represented a return of 21.13 per cent. on invested capital of about $750,000, as determined by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The corporation had advanced to a leading place in the brush trade. In 1919 and 1920, the president and treasurer had received salaries of $12,000 and $15,000, respectively. In 1918 their combined salaries were approximately $25,000.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature