La Crosse Tel. Corp. v. Wis. Emp. Rels. Bd., 336 U.S. 18 (1949)

2. In a proceeding under state law, the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board certified that the employees in the plant and traffic departments of a telephone company had elected to combine in a single bargaining unit and had chosen a certain labor organization as their collective bargaining representative, and that the employees in the office department had elected to constitute themselves as a separate unit and had chosen not to have any collective bargaining representative. The National Labor Relations Board had not undertaken, under the National Labor Relations Act, to determine the appropriate bargaining representative or unit of representation of the employees. The company concededly was engaged in interstate commerce and the industry was one over which the National Labor Relations Board had consistently exercised jurisdiction. Held: The State Board’s certification is invalid as in conflict with the National Labor Relations Act. Bethlehem Steel Co. v. New [p. 19] 18 Counsel for Parties.

But it has not been shown that the Wisconsin law gives such slight force to the certification. The statute provides that the representative chosen by the employees shall be the exclusive one for purposes of collective bargaining. § 111.05 (1). Provision is made for the board to take a secret ballot of the employees and to certify the results thereof, whenever a question arises concerning the representation of employees in a collective bargaining unit. §111.05(3). And the statute contains, the following direction: “The board’s certification of the results of any election shall be conclusive as to the findings in- [p. 22] eluded therein unless reviewed in the same manner as provided by subsection (8) of section 111.07 for review of orders of the board.”1 § 111.05 (3). The certification in these cases has been reviewed and sustained by the highest court of Wisconsin. While that certification is not irrevocable for all time,2 it fixes a status to which Wisconsin provides a sanction. For it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to bargain with the representative of a majority of the employees.3 § 111.06 (d). And since § 111.05 (3) makes the certification, subject to judicial review, “conclusive as to the findings included therein,” it would seem that the certification cannot be collaterally attacked in that proceeding or heard de novo. We are pointed to no Wisconsin authority to the effect that it can be.

On this phase of the case we are, indeed, referred to only one Wisconsin authority and that is United R. & W. D. S. E. v. Wisconsin Board, 245 Wis. 636, 15 N. W. 2d 844. But that case merely held that an order of the Wisconsin Board that a referendum of employees by secret ballot be held to determine whether an “all union” agreement was desired was not reviewable. It did not [p. 23] deal with a certificate which was in fact reviewed and sustained by the same court as in the present cases. It is true that in the opinion below, the Wisconsin Supreme Court said that the “mere fact-finding procedure” of the Wisconsin Board in ascertaining the facts, in ordering an election, and in certifying the result “constitutes action in merely its ministerial capacity.” 251 Wis. at 592, 30 N. W. 2d at 245. But that comment was directed to the lack of discretion which the state statute had left the Wisconsin Board. It had no relevance to the effect of the certification under Wisconsin law.

the state labor board from determining a representative of plaintiff’s supervisory employees to bargain collectively with the plaintiff. Under New York law the labor board had authority to hold elections [p. 25] We went on to point out that the National Board had jurisdiction of the industry in which those particular employers were engaged and had asserted control of their labor relations in general. Both the state and the federal statutes had laid hold of the same relationship and had provided different standards for its regulation. Since the employers in question were subject to regulation by the National Board, we thought the situation too fraught with potential conflict to permit the intrusion of the state agency, even though the National Board had not acted in the particular cases before us.

Those considerations control the present cases. This employer is concededly engaged in interstate commerce; and the industry is one over which the National Board has consistently exercised jurisdiction.7 The Wisconsin Act provides that a majority of employees in a single craft, division, department or plant of an employer may elect to constitute that group a separate bargaining unit. § 111.02 (6). The federal act leaves that matter to the discretion of the board.8 When under those circumstances the state board puts its imprimatur on a particular group as the collective bargaining agent of employees, it freezes into a pattern that which the federal act has left [p. 26] fluid.9 In practical effect the true measure of conflict between the state and federal scheme of regulation may not be found only in the collision between the formal orders that the two boards may issue. We know that administrative practice also disposes of cases in which no order has been entered. Disposition of controversies on an administrative as distinguished from a formal basis will often reflect the attitudes of the National Board which have not been reduced to orders in those specific cases. A certification by a state board under a different or conflicting theory of representation may therefore be as readily disruptive of the practice under the federal act as if the orders of the two boards made a head-on collision. These are the very real potentials of conflict which lead us to allow supremacy10 to the federal scheme even though it has not yet been applied in any formal way to this particular employer. The problem of employee representation is a sensitive and delicate one in industrial relations. The uncertainty as to which board is master and how long it will remain such can be as disruptive of peace between various industrial factions as actual competition between two boards for supremacy. We are satisfied with the wisdom of the policy underlying the Bethlehem case and adhere to it.

This decision applies the federal income tax to gains derived by a debtor from his purchase of his own obligations at a discount and his consequent control over their discharge. It presents the specific question whether a [p. 30] solvent natural person, in straitened financial circumstances, must include in his gross income for federal income tax purposes the difference between (1) the face amount of his personal indebtedness as the maker of secured bonds, originally issued by him at face value for cash, and (2) a lesser amount paid by him for their purchase. The debtor’s obligations were not unpaid balances of purchase prices which could be readjusted by the discharge of the obligations. The proceeds of the obligations were not traced into identifiable losses offsetting the debtor’s realized gains from the discharge of these obligations. Each seller knew that the bonds he sold were being bought by or for the maker of them. In each sale the bondholder sought to minimize his probable loss by getting as much as possible, directly or indirectly, from the maker of the bonds as the one available purchaser of them. The maker of the bonds, at the same time, sought to reduce his obligations as much as possible by buying the bonds as cheaply as he could. While each seller thus knew that he was receiving from the maker of the bonds less than their face amount, there is no finding that any seller intended to transfer or release something for nothing or to make a gift of any part of his claim, as distinguished from making a sale and assignment of his whole claim for the highest available price. The maker thus realized a gain from each purchase and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue found correctly that, for federal income tax purposes, the maker must include that gain in his gross income for the tax year in which he made the purchase.

The respondent, Lewis F. Jacobson, in 1938, 1939 and 1940 resided, practiced law and owned or controlled substantial property interests in Chicago, Illinois. In 1943 the petitioner, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, found deficiencies in the income taxes paid by the respondent for [p. 31] each of those years. Those deficiencies totaled $3,967.97, of which about $2,500 are now before us. This case arose from the Commissioner’s addition to the reported gross income of the respondent of the differences between

By purchases made in 1922 and 1923 the respondent acquired a 99-year lease, running from May 1, 1914, together with a two-story store, office and apartment building on the leased premises in Chicago. On or about May 1, 1925, he borrowed $90,000 from a nearby bank and, together with his wife, executed in return 200 bonds secured by a trust deed mortgaging to that bank the leasehold and the improvements thereon. The bonds bore interest at 6^2 per cent per annum and were for [p. 33] the total principal amount of $90,000, with $2,500 maturing semiannually up to and including November 1, 1931. The balance of the bonds, totalling $57,500, were to mature May 1, 1932. The original proceeds were used by the respondent to retire the existing encumbrance, of an undisclosed amount, on the property, pay for a $16,250 addition made by him to the building on the leasehold and pay the necessary brokerage commission of approximately 10 per cent of the loan, plus the cost of printing the bonds and other expenses in connection with the loan. A remaining “small surplus” was paid to the respondent. In 1925 the respondent, for the purposes of computing depreciation, allocated $76,580.56 to the improvements, including the new addition, and $40,000 to the leasehold, out of their total cost to him of $116,580.56.

The bonds due on or before November 1, 1931, were paid at or about their maturities. The debtor has never been in default on any interest payment. However, after the trustee bank closed on June 8, 1931, a committee was formed to represent the holders of this issue of bonds. May 1, 1932, the respondent secured from the committee and individual bondholders a five-year extension of the maturity on all of the bonds and a reduction in the interest rate from 6^ to 5 per cent. During this extension the respondent issued his checks in the names of the respective bondholders to cover interest due them. The checks were delivered by the secretary of the bondholders’ committee, the respondent kept himself fully informed as to the identity and location of the respective bondholders and they, in turn, frequently visited him to learn about his financial condition and that of the trusteed property. In 1937 he procured a further extension of the maturity of the bonds to May 1, 1942, and, in that connection, paid 10 per cent on [p. 34] the principal of each bond, leaving a total outstanding balance of $51,750 payable on these bonds.

In his petition to the Tax Court the respondent stated, and it has not been disputed, that the value of the leasehold and building had sharply depreciated since his acquisition of them. The neighborhood had changed, stores were vacant or paid less than half of their previous rents, from 1932 to 1938 the value of the property was substantially less than its cost to him, conditions were [p. 35] getting worse and he felt certain that he would sustain a large loss in connection with the property.1

The Tax Court’s findings describe each bond sale that is material. Some were to the respondent personally and some to his law partner, acting on his behalf. The rest were made indirectly to the respondent through brokers or through the bondholders’ committee. The Tax Court said that each sale that was made through a broker or [p. 36] the committee was closely akin to an open market transaction. It made no finding that any seller intended to transfer or release something for nothing. It referred to all of the respondent’s acquisitions of bonds as purchases. Apparently the bonds were payable to bearer and the Tax Court referred to them as negotiable bonds. Each seller made a complete transfer to the respondent of all the seller’s rights to or under the bonds. Each seller thus determined the amount of his own loss on his investment. Each knew that the maker of the bond would acquire or secure control over it and would thus be enabled to reduce his liabilities by its face amount. Except for the 10 per cent paid on each bond in 1937, there is no evidence that any bondholder at any time received any partial payment on any bond or consented to a reduction of the indebtedness evidenced by the bond. There is no suggestion that any of the respondent’s payments made in 1938, 1939 or 1940 were made specifically in partial reduction of the respondent’s obligation as evidenced by a bond or that any bondholder specifically discharged him from any part of the balance of that obligation. On the other hand, it does appear that each of such payments was made in consideration of the transfer to the respondent of title to the entire bond. Each bond was delivered to the respondent evidencing his obligation for its full original face amount, less only the 10 per cent payment made, on account, in 1937. At the time of the trial, the respondent apparently still held the purchased bonds “intact.” The Court of Appeals repudiated any distinction made by the Tax Court for present purposes between the direct and indirect sales to the respondent. The Court of Appeals based its decision on each seller’s knowledge that he was transferring his bond to the maker of it. Thus far we agree. The Court of Appeals, however, without any finding of intent by the respective sellers to transfer or release something [p. 37] for nothing, as distinguished from an intent to get the highest available price for their entire claims, treated the respondent’s gain from each purchase as exempt from the taxation imposed by § 22 (a) of the Revenue Act of 19382 and of the Internal Revenue Code, because that court felt itself obliged by precedent to classify each such gain as a “gift” under § 22 (b) (3) of that Act3 and Code. We hold, however, that those Sections do not, in the light of the decisions of this Court, permit that result.

The respondent realized an immediate financial gain from his purchase of these bonds at a discount. By that acquisition he was enabled, at will, to cancel them and thus discharge himself from liability to pay them. While the record indicates that he held them “intact,” apparently without crediting released indebtedness on them or otherwise physically cancelling them in whole or in part (except for the 10 per cent payments made by him on each bond in 1937), his possession of them and control over them is not disputed and the petitioner has properly treated their acquisition as constituting a reduction of the respondent’s debts to the extent of their face amount. At the time of their purchase the respondent was unconditionally and primarily bound to pay their face amounts on May 1, 1942, with interest. Although in straitened financial circumstances he was solvent, both before and after his acquisition of the bonds, and the bonds apparently were collectible from him in full through appropriate enforcement proceedings. His acquisition, and consequent control over the discharge of these bonds, therefore, improved his net worth by the difference between their face amount and the price he paid for them. It also relieved him of the semiannual interest payments on them of 5 per cent per annum. His acquisition of them likewise reduced the face amount of the lien held by others upon his leasehold property. In the first instance he had received the full face amount in cash for these bonds so that his repurchase of them for 50 per [p. 39] cent, or less, of that amount reflected a substantial benefit which he had derived from the use of that borrowed money.4 These were not purchase money bonds. The gains from their cancellation were not akin to reductions in balances due on the prices of previously acquired property. The respective sellers of the bonds bore no relation to the respondent other than that of creditors. The gains derived by the respondent through these purchases were comparable to those he would have realized if he had purchased, at the same discount, like bonds issued by a third party and had resold them at full face value or had turned them in at full value as a credit upon some other indebtedness of the respondent. His gains were comparable in their nature to those which he would have realized if a third party, pursuant to a contract, had paid off his indebtedness on these bonds for him to the extent of the discount at which he purchased them.5 The nature [p. 40] of the gain derived by a debtor from his purchase of his own obligations at a discount is the same whether the debtor is a corporation or a natural person. That such a gain comes within the meaning of gross income as used in federal income tax laws was long ago recognized by the Treasury Department’s Regulations and by this Court in the leading cases in this field.6 United States n. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U. S. 1; Helvering v. American Chicle Co., 291 U. S. 426. Similar provisions appeared in the Regulations in effect in 1938-1940.7

Unless those Sections as they stood in 1938 meant that the gains derived by a debtor corporation from its purchases of its own obligations at a discount resulted in gross income under § 22 (a), there was no need for these 1939 Amendments. Furthermore, as the status of [p. 43] natural persons and corporations is not differentiated in § 22 (a), the new Amendments make it equally clear that, inasmuch as they relieve only certain corporations from the taxability of gains derived from their purchases of their own obligations at a discount, it must be that similar gains derived by natural persons also remain taxable under §22 (a). The strength of this reflection of the

§ 22 (b) (9), as distinguished from other exclusions under § 22 (b), is available only upon the express condition that the taxpayer makes and files at the time of filing the return its consent to the Regulations11 prescribed under § 113 (b) (3)12 then in effect. That Section and such Regulations require that, where any amount is excluded by a corporation from its gross income under §22(b)(9) on account of its discharge of its own indebtedness, the whole or a part of such amount shall be applied to the reduction of the basis of property held by the taxpayer during any portion of the taxable year in which such discharge occurs. The amount to be so applied and the properties to which the reduction shall be allocated are to be determined by Regulations approved by the Secretary of the Treasury. This means that such a gain, [p. 46] instead of being completely excluded as exempt from taxation, is postponed, for income tax purposes, until a later date when the property is disposed of in a way which will permit another form of ascertainment of the taxpayer’s gain or loss in its disposition.13 These provisions therefore demonstrate that Congress, at least since 1939, has prescribed that, in order for a corporate taxpayer to exclude from its gross income under § 22 (a) certain gains attributable to the discharge within the taxable year of the taxpayer’s indebtedness evidenced by bonds, the taxpayer must consent to the subsequent use of those gains in reducing the basis of property held by the taxpayer during any portion of the taxable year in which such discharge occurred. A corporate taxpayer with gains meeting these specifications but not filing the required consent would be obliged to include those gains in its gross income, unless additional facts brought them [p. 47] under some other exemption. A fortiori, a natural person, such as the respondent in the instant case, who has derived gains precisely within these specifications but who, as a natural person, is ineligible to file the required consent is obliged to include those gains in his gross income under §22 (a). It remains, therefore, to consider whether there are facts in this case which bring this respondent’s transactions within any exclusion other than that stated in § 22 (b) (9).14

gifts from taxation prescribed by § 22 (b) (3).15 This was applied by this Court in favor of a taxpayer in Helvering n. American Dental Co., 318 U. S. 322, as well as by the court below in the instant case. Both the general provision for taxation of income and this provision for the exclusion of gifts from gross income, for income tax purposes, have been in the Federal Income Tax Acts in substantially their present form since the Revenue Act of 1916.16 The contrast between the [p. 49] provisions is striking. The income taxed is described in sweeping terms and should be broadly construed in accordance with an obvious purpose to tax income comprehensively. The exemptions, on the other hand, are specifically stated and should be construed with restraint in the light of the same policy. Congress could have excluded from the gross income of all taxpayers the gains derived by debtors either from their acquisitions of their own obligations at a discount and their consequent control over them, or from their respective releases from all or part of such obligations by their respective creditors upon the debtor’s payment to the creditor of something less than the full amount of the debt. Congress, especially since the Revenue Act of 1938, has been cognizant of this issue and of its power to meet it as stated, but it has chosen to extend such relief only on the above described restricted and temporary basis and only in the case of corporations. In its treatment of the issue Congress also has required the corporate taxpayer’s consent to an alternative plan for a reduction of the corporation’s basis of property values to be used in later determinations of its gains or losses. This special treatment is far different from the total exclusion of a gain resulting from an exempt gift. If such gains were already exempted as gifts under § 22 (b) (3), as representing something transferred to the debtor for nothing, there would have been no need for § 22 (b) (9). The conclusion to be drawn is that such transfers as are described in§22(b)(9) could not, without more, qualify as exempt gifts under § 22 (b) (3). The same may be said of the acquisition, by a natural person, of his own obligations as debtor. The facts in the instant case [p. 50] present a situation quite similar to one contemplated by § 22 (b) (9) except that the taxpayer here is a natural person. This emphasizes the taxability of the gains before us.

In the instant case the relation between the bondholder and the respondent may be assumed in each transaction to have been one in which the ultimate parties were known to each other to be such. There was no suggestion in the evidence or the findings that any bondholder was acting from any interest other than his own. Each transaction was a sale. The seller sought to get as high a price as he could for the bond and the buyer sought to pay as low a price as he could for the same bond. If the transaction had been completely on the open market through a stock exchange, the conduct and intent of each party could have been the same and there would have been little, if any, basis for any claim that the respondent’s gain was not taxable income. The mere fact that the seller knew that he was selling to the maker of the bond as his only available market did not change the sale into a gift. In the absence of proof to the contrary, the intent of the seller may be assumed to have been to get all he could for his entire claim. Although the sales price was less than the face of the bond and less than the original issuing price of the bond, there was nothing to indicate that the seller was not getting all that he could for all that he had. There is nothing in the evidence or findings to indicate that he intended to transfer or did transfer something for nothing. The form of the transaction emphasized this relationship. The seller assigned the entire bond to his purchaser. The seller did not first release the maker from a part of the maker’s obligation and, having made the maker a gift of that release, then sell him the balance of the bond or vice versa. If the seller actually had intended to give the maker some gift the natural reflection of that gift would have been a credit on the face of the bond or at least some record or [p. 51] testimony evidencing the release. This is not saying that the form of the transaction is conclusive. Assuming that the extension of the maturity of the bonds in the instant case was binding on the creditor, we do not rest this case upon the fact that the sale was made before maturity or that the seller may have received valid consideration for a total release of his claim because the debtor’s payment was made before maturity. It is quite possible that a bondholder might make a gift of an entire bond to anyone, including the maker of it. The facts and findings in this case do not establish any such intent of the seller to make a gift in contradiction of the natural implications arising from the sales and assignments which he made. It is conceivable, although hardly likely, that a bondholder, in the ordinary course of business and without any express release of his debtor, might have sold part of his claims on the bonds he held at the full face value of those parts and then have made a gift of the rest of his claims on those bonds to the same debtor “for nothing.” It is that kind of extraordinary transaction that the respondent asks us, as a matter of law, to read into the simple sales which actually took place and from which he derived financial gains. We are unable to do so on the findings before us. Cf. Bogardus v. Commissioner, 302 U. S. 34.