Summary

by John Marshall Harlan United States v. Leslie Salt Company…

Since 1920 the Treasury has considered certificates of indebtedness as akin to bonds and debentures, including 'only instruments having the general character of investment securities, as distinguished from instruments evidencing debts arising in ordinary transaction between individuals * * *.' Sales Tax Rulings, L.O. 909, December 1920 ST. 1-20-85; Regs. 55 (Art. 14) , October 26, 1920, 22 T.D.Int.Rev. 502 (1920) . [12] The essence of an 'investment security' is, of course, marketability, and this basic feature the Leslie Salt notes did not have.
Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall Harlan United States v. Leslie Salt Company…

Instruments containing the essential features of a promissory note, but issued by corporations in numbers under a trust indenture, either in registered form or with coupons attached, embodying provisions for acceleration of maturity in the event of any default by the obligor, for optional registration in the case of bearer bonds, for authentication by the trustee, and sometimes for redemption before maturity, or similar provisions, are bonds within the meaning of the statute, whether called bonds, debentures, or notes.
Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall Harlan United States v. Leslie Salt Company…

Moreover, it may be observed that in the stamp tax sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 the words 'certificates of indebtedness', consistenty with this administrative history, have been eliminated as a separate taxable category of corporate instruments, and are employed simply as a term of art embracing all the instruments taxed, that is, 'bonds,' 'debentures' and other instruments in registered form or with coupons.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature