| 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 |
| Holding: | A stock dividend based on accumulated profits is not "income." |
| Majority: | Holmes |
| Joinmajority: | White, Day, Van Devanter, Pitney, McReynolds, Brandeis, Clarke |
| Concurrence: | McKenna |
| 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."[1] 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.[2]