Talk:Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.

A leading case
At the risk of stating what is or should be obvious to every U.S. tax lawyer (but not to everyone else), Glenshaw Glass is a leading case in the universe of court decisions on U.S. Federal income taxation. Yours, Famspear 16:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Questions arising from the Test" material
The following unsourced material has been moved from the article to here for discussion:


 * Although the test seems simple on its face, there are many questions that arise out of the tripartite test. The simple questions simply are: what is an accession to wealth, when is it clearly realized, and when does a taxpayer have complete dominion?  Examples that speak to such questions arise out of the recent home run balls of Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire.


 * Is catching the ball an accession to wealth? The ball may be worth something, but how is it to be valued?


 * If the ball is an accession to wealth, when is it clearly realized? Is it realized when you catch it or when you sell it?


 * Lastly, when does a taxpayer have complete dominion? When is it that the taxpayer gains complete dominion?


 * The answers to these questions will greatly alter whether or not a taxpayer has gross income, and these answers are all highly debatable to this day. This is the test that is used, but it is often difficult to determine what the outcome will be.


 * Additionally, one of the major problems with the test in Glenshaw Glass is that it implies that the 3 prongs are easily distinct from each other. However, the "clearly realized" requirement is very ambiguous. The difficulties with this prong are clearly illustrated when one asks if the one must clearly realize the thing itself or the value. For example, if the thing itself must be clearly realized (in the homerun ball example- this would mean possession of the ball), then "clearly realized" seems redundant with the "complete dominion" prong of the test. However, if the "clearly realized" refers to the value (in the homerun ball example, this would mean selling the ball and getting its value), then it seems redundant with the "accession to wealth" prong.

This is classic law school stuff - a good discussion, and a sophisticated version of "how to." I'm not sure this kind of commentary belongs in a Wikipedia article. Can we modify this and include it in the article? Any thoughts, anyone? Famspear (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)