Summary

Owen J. Roberts Helvering v. Bruun — Opinion of the Court

While it is true that economic gain is not always taxable as income, it is settled that the realization of gain need not be in cash derived from the sale of an asset. Gain may occur as a result of exchange of property, payment of the taxpayer's indebtedness, relief from a liability, or other profit realized from the completion of a transaction. [9] The fact that the gain is a portion of the value of property received by the taxpayer in the transaction does not negative its realization.
Source: Wikisource

Owen J. Roberts Helvering v. Bruun — Opinion of the Court

The respondent insists that the realty,-a capital asset at the date of the execution of the lease,-remained such throughout the term and after its expiration; that improvements affixed to the soil became part of the realty indistinguishably blended in the capital asset; that such improvements cannot be separately valued or treated as received in exchange for the improvements which were on the land at the date of the execution of the lease
Source: Wikisource

Owen J. Roberts Helvering v. Bruun — Opinion of the Court

Such added value, it is argued, can be considered capital gain only upon the owner's disposition of the asset. The position is that the economic gain consequent upon the enhanced value of the recaptured asset is not gain derived from capital or realized within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment and may not, therefore, be taxed without apportionment.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature