Supreme Court of the United States
United States v. Generes
February 23, 1972405 U.S. 93
Summary
The Court held that the proper standard for determining whether a bad debt is a business debt under §166 is a dominant‑motivation test, not the significant‑motivation test applied by the lower courts, and therefore reversed the judgment and remanded for a judgment n.o.v. in favor of the United States. Justice Marshall concurred and Justice Douglas dissented, the latter favoring the significant‑motivation approach.
Holding
- Whether the dominant‑motivation test, rather than the significant‑motivation test, is the correct measure of proximate relation for a business bad debt under §166.. The proper measure is the dominant‑motivation test; significant motivation alone is insufficient.
Docket 70-28
Cited authorities
- Rev. Rul. 71-561
- Rev. Rul. 60-48
- 95 U.S.C. §§ 166
- 39 Stat. 759
- 56 Stat. 820
- 105 U.S.C. § 262
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 50
- 3 Sw. U. L. Rev. 135
Cited by
- Leonard F. Cremona and Marie Cremona v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- First National Bank at Lubbock v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellant
- Nathan Cummings and Joanne T. Cummings v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- Putoma Corporation, Successor by Merger of Pro-Mac Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- Putoma Corporation, Successor by Merger of Pro-Mac Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- H. L. Davenport and Neysa C. Davenport v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- Arthur Joel Eisenberg and June A. Eisenberg v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- Clyde L. Fincher and Catherine Fincher v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue