Towne v. Eisner

{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}

{{Infobox SCOTUS case

|Litigants=Towne v. Eisner

|ArgueDate=December 12

|ArgueYear=1917

|DecideDate=January 7

|DecideYear=1918

|FullName=Towne v. Eisner, Collector of United States Internal Revenue for the Third District of the State of New York

|USVol=245

|USPage=418

|ParallelCitations=38 S. Ct. 158; 62 L. Ed. 372; 1918 U.S. LEXIS 2143; 1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 14; 3 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2959

|Prior=

|Subsequent=

|Holding=A stock dividend based on accumulated profits is not "income."

|Majority=Holmes

|JoinMajority=White, Day, Van Devanter, Pitney, McReynolds, Brandeis, Clarke

|Concurrence=McKenna

|LawsApplied=

|Overruled=Eisner v. Macomber

}}

Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418 (1918), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "a stock dividend based on accumulated profits was not 'income' within the true intent of the statute."{{ussc|name=Towne v. Eisner|link=|volume=245|page=418|pin=|year=1918}}. {{Include-FedCourts}} Congress passed a new law in reaction to Towne v. Eisner and so the case was soon overturned by the Supreme Court in Eisner v. Macomber.

It includes the quotable passage: "A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in colour and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used." ― Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/245/418/ Towne v Eisner], 245 U.S. 418 425 (1918), quoted in Roberts, Harold S. (1986) [1966] Roberts' Dictionary of Industrial Relations 3rd ed. (Washington D.C.; Bureau of National Affairs), p. vii. ISBN 0-87179-488-8.