U.S. Supreme Court BURNET v. COMMONWEALTH IMPROVEMENT CO., 287 U.S. 415 (1932)

[Page 287 U.S. 415, 420]

treated as differentthings and taxed accordingly upon separate returns. The situation is not materially different from the not infrequent one where a corporation is controlled by a single stockholder. See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 208, 209 S., 40 S.Ct. 189, 9 A.L.R. 1570; Lynch v. Hornby, 247 U.S. 339, 341, 38 S.Ct. 543; United States v. Phellis, 257 U.S. 156, 172, 173 S., 42 S.Ct. 63.

Southern Pacific Company v. Lowe, supra, and Gulf Oil Corp. v. Lewellyn, supra (the latter covered in principle by the first), cannot be regarded as laying down any general rule authorizing disregard of corporate entity in respect of taxation. These cases presented peculiar situations, and were determined upon consideration of them. In the former this court said: 'The case turns upon its very peculiar facts, and is distinguishable from others in which the question of the identity of a controlling stockholder with his corporation has been raised. Pullman's Car Co. v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 115 U.S. 587, 596, 6 S.Ct. 194; Peterson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 205 U.S. 364, 391, 27 S.Ct. 513.'

Reversed.