Knetsch v. United States (1960)

Docket
23
Decided
1960-01-01
Category
General

Summary

Question: Did the transaction between Knetsch and the insurance company create an indebtedness within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code? Conclusion: No. In a 6-3 decision, Justice William J. Brennan wrote for the majority affirming the lower court's decision that the transaction was a sham. The loans the insurance company gave Knetsch were essentially rebates for a substantial portion of the interest payments and the small amount kept by the company was its fee for providing a "façade of loans" to be used to provide tax deductions. Justice William O. Douglas dissented, saying that as long as a transaction is allowed within the limits of insurance policies it should be recognized by the Internal Revenue Service, and any remedy should be left to the legislature.

View the full interactive analysis on SCOTUS Lens →