Glenshaw Glass Co Case Study

255 Words2 Pages
In the case of Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co, the item of potential income was the $324,529.94 in punitive damages for fraud and antitrust violations from Hartford-Empire Company. The lower courts did not treat this as income and determined that Glenshaw was not required to report their awards for punitive damages as income under 26 U.S.C.S. ß 22(a). The taxpayers argued it was unconstitutional by saying there was no constitutional barrier to imposing taxes on punitive damages. The court found the definition of gross income in Section 22 (a) of the 1939 Code. Today the courts would find the definition of gross income in Section 61 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 68A Stat. 17. The court does hold that the award of punitive damages