DEFINITIONS: “tangibles”

By ftsig-admin | March 27, 2025

Grok, 3/27/25

QUESTION 1:

What is the detailed definition of “tangibles” for the purpose of the internal revenue code as defined by the U.S. Supreme court? And please give me a history of changes to that definition over time.

ANSWER 1:

The term “tangibles” is not explicitly defined as a standalone concept by the U.S. Supreme Court in the context of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). Instead, the IRC and related regulations, particularly under sections like 162 and 263, address “tangible property” in the context of tax deductions, capitalization, and depreciation. The Supreme Court has shaped the understanding of tangible property through landmark cases interpreting these provisions, focusing on whether expenditures related to tangible assets are deductible as business expenses or must be capitalized. Below, I’ll provide a detailed explanation based on IRC provisions, Treasury Regulations, and Supreme Court rulings, followed by a historical evolution of the concept.

Detailed Definition of “Tangibles” in the IRC Context

In the Internal Revenue Code, “tangible property” generally refers to physical assets that have a material existence and can be touched, seen, or measured, as opposed to intangible assets like patents or goodwill. The concept is most directly addressed in regulations under IRC Section 263 (capital expenditures) and Section 167 (depreciation), with practical application in Treasury Regulations such as 26 CFR § 1.263(a)-3 (post-2013 final tangibles regulations). These regulations define tangible property as:

  • Real Property: Land and improvements thereto, such as buildings or structures that are permanently affixed (e.g., Treas. Reg. § 1.263(a)-3(e)).
  • Personal Property: Physical items that are not real property, such as machinery, equipment, or vehicles (e.g., Treas. Reg. § 1.263(a)-3(f)).

The Supreme Court has not provided a single, overarching definition of “tangibles” but has clarified its tax treatment through cases distinguishing between deductible repairs and capital improvements to tangible property. Key principles include:

  1. Physical Existence: Tangible property must have a physical form, distinguishing it from intangible assets (e.g., INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79 (1992), contrasting tangible and intangible expenditures).
  2. Economic Useful Life: The Court has ruled that expenditures extending the useful life of tangible property beyond one year typically require capitalization (e.g., Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933)).
  3. Ordinary vs. Capital Nature: Repairs to tangible property that maintain its current condition are deductible, while improvements that enhance value or prolong life are capitalized (e.g., Commissioner v. Idaho Power Co., 418 U.S. 1 (1974)).

For example, in Commissioner v. Lincoln Savings & Loan Assn., 403 U.S. 345 (1971), the Court emphasized that expenditures creating a separate, identifiable asset (tangible or intangible) must be capitalized under Section 263, indirectly reinforcing the tangible property framework.

Historical Evolution of the Definition and Tax Treatment

The understanding of “tangibles” in tax law has evolved through statutory changes, Treasury Regulations, and Supreme Court interpretations. Below is a timeline of significant developments:

Pre-20th Century: Early Tax Law

  • No Formal Definition: Before the IRC’s codification in 1939, U.S. tax law (e.g., Revenue Acts of 1861 and 1913) did not explicitly define “tangible property.” Tax treatment relied on general accounting principles and judicial rulings, focusing on physical assets like land or equipment.
  • Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895): The Supreme Court struck down an income tax on real estate income, suggesting a narrow view of taxable property (later overturned by the 16th Amendment in 1913). This case did not define “tangibles” but highlighted physical property’s role in tax disputes.

Early 20th Century: IRC Origins and Initial Cases

  • Revenue Act of 1913: Introduced income tax post-16th Amendment, taxing income from tangible assets like property and equipment without a specific definition.
  • Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933): The Supreme Court established a foundational distinction—payments to preserve tangible business assets (e.g., repairs) could be deductible under Section 23(a) (predecessor to Section 162), while those creating or enhancing assets (e.g., new equipment) were capital expenditures under Section 24 (predecessor to Section 263). This case implicitly treated “tangibles” as physical business assets.

Mid-20th Century: Refinement Through Case Law

  • Commissioner v. Idaho Power Co., 418 U.S. 1 (1974): The Court ruled that depreciation of equipment (tangible personal property) used in constructing capital assets must be capitalized under Section 263(a). This reinforced that tangible property’s tax treatment depends on its role in producing long-term benefits.
  • Pre-Regulation Conflicts: Before the 2013 final tangibles regulations, courts grappled with inconsistent case law. For instance, Mt. Morris Drive-In Theatre Co. v. Commissioner, 238 F.2d 85 (6th Cir. 1956), allowed deductions for tangible property repairs, while other cases required capitalization, creating ambiguity.

Late 20th Century: Statutory and Regulatory Shifts

  • IRC of 1954: Codified earlier laws, maintaining distinctions between deductible expenses (Section 162) and capital expenditures (Section 263) for tangible property. Depreciation rules under Section 167 further applied to tangible assets with determinable useful lives.
  • INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79 (1992): While focused on intangibles, this case clarified that expenditures yielding long-term benefits (e.g., improving tangible property) must be capitalized, sharpening the tangible/intangible divide.

21st Century: Final Tangibles Regulations

  • Treasury Decision 9636 (2013): Effective January 1, 2014, the IRS issued final tangibles regulations (26 CFR § 1.263(a)-1 through -3), providing a detailed framework:
    • Unit of Property: Defines tangible property by functional interdependence (e.g., a building and its systems).
    • Improvement Standards: Capitalization required if the expenditure results in a betterment, restoration, or adaptation of tangible property.
    • Safe Harbors: Introduced de minimis rules (e.g., $2,500 threshold per item for taxpayers without audited financial statements, per Notice 2015-82) and small taxpayer exemptions.
  • No Direct Supreme Court Ruling Post-2013: The Court has not revisited the 2013 regulations directly, but they align with prior rulings emphasizing physicality and economic life.

Recent Developments

  • Moore v. United States, 602 U.S. ___ (2024): While focused on income attribution, this case indirectly supports broad taxation of tangible property-derived income, consistent with historical precedents like Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955).
  • Ongoing Consistency: The definition remains tied to physical assets, with tax treatment refined by regulations rather than Supreme Court redefinition.

Summary

The U.S. Supreme Court has not explicitly defined “tangibles” in a single ruling but has shaped its tax implications through cases interpreting IRC Sections 162, 263, and 167. “Tangible property” encompasses physical real and personal property, with tax treatment hinging on whether expenditures maintain or enhance it. Historically, the concept evolved from vague pre-IRC notions to a structured framework under the 2013 regulations, influenced by Supreme Court decisions emphasizing economic utility and physicality. No major definitional shifts have occurred since 2013, though regulatory clarifications have reduced judicial ambiguity.

QUESTION 2:

So everything OTHER than the above is, by definition INTANTIGLE and is taxed at the domicile of the owner per Union Refrigerator v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194?

ANSWER 2:

Your question seems to build on the discussion of “tangibles” in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and introduces the concept of “intangibles” in the context of Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194 (1905), a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing state taxation. Let’s clarify the distinction between tangible and intangible property under federal tax law and then address the implications of Union Refrigerator for taxing intangibles.

Tangible vs. Intangible Property in the IRC

Yes, in the context of the IRC and Supreme Court interpretations, property that does not fall under the definition of “tangible property” (i.e., physical assets like land, buildings, machinery, or equipment) is generally classified as intangible property. Intangible property includes assets without physical form, such as:

  • Intellectual property (patents, copyrights, trademarks)
  • Financial instruments (stocks, bonds, bank accounts)
  • Contractual rights (leases, franchises)
  • Goodwill or business reputation

The tax treatment of intangibles differs from tangibles. For example:

  • ** IRC Section 167**: Allows depreciation for certain intangibles with determinable useful lives (e.g., patents), but not for others like goodwill (amortizable under Section 197 since 1993).
  • ** IRC Section 263**: Expenditures creating or enhancing intangibles often require capitalization (e.g., INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79 (1992)).
  • Income Taxation: Income from intangibles (e.g., dividends, interest) is taxed under IRC provisions like Section 61, typically based on the owner’s residence or situs of the income source.

However, your reference to Union Refrigerator v. Kentucky shifts the focus from federal income tax to state taxation of property, introducing a constitutional dimension under the Due Process and Commerce Clauses. Let’s explore that case and its implications.

Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky (1905)

Case Background

  • Facts: Union Refrigerator, a Wisconsin corporation, owned railroad cars (tangible personal property) used in Kentucky. Kentucky sought to impose a property tax on these cars, despite the company’s domicile being in Wisconsin.
  • Issue: Could Kentucky tax the full value of tangible movable property located within its borders, even if owned by an out-of-state entity?
  • Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that Kentucky could tax the tangible property (railroad cars) physically present within its jurisdiction, but it hinted at a broader principle for intangibles: the situs of intangible property for tax purposes is generally the owner’s domicile.

Key Principle for Intangibles

The Court distinguished between tangible and intangible property:

  • Tangibles: Taxable where physically located (the “situs” rule), as physical presence provides a jurisdictional basis for taxation.
  • Intangibles: Traditionally taxable at the domicile of the owner, absent a specific situs established by state law or commercial activity (e.g., a business situs).

The Court stated:
“The power of taxation by any State is limited to persons, property, or business within its jurisdiction… Intangible personal property… has been held to have its situs at the domicile of its owner.”
This reflects the mobilia sequuntur personam doctrine (“movables follow the person”), a common-law rule for intangibles.

Application to Your Question

You asked whether everything other than tangible property is, by definition, intangible and taxed at the owner’s domicile per Union Refrigerator. The answer is partially yes, with qualifications:

  • Definition: Yes, under federal and state tax frameworks, property not classified as tangible (physical) is intangible by default.
  • Taxation at Domicile: For state property tax purposes, Union Refrigerator supports the principle that intangibles are taxed at the owner’s domicile unless they acquire a separate taxable situs (e.g., through business use in another state). However, this applies to state taxation, not federal income tax under the IRC.

Evolution and Limits of the Union Refrigerator Principle

The Union Refrigerator ruling was foundational but has been refined over time, particularly for intangibles:

  1. Early 20th Century Confirmation
    • Blodgett v. Silberman, 277 U.S. 1 (1928): The Court upheld that intangibles like stocks and bonds are taxable by the state of the owner’s domicile for estate tax purposes, reinforcing Union Refrigerator.
  2. Business Situs Exception
    • Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193 (1936): The Court allowed a state to tax intangibles (e.g., accounts receivable) if they had a “business situs” in that state due to commercial activity, expanding beyond the domicile rule.
  3. Multiple Taxation Concerns
    • Curry v. McCanless, 307 U.S. 357 (1939): The Court permitted multiple states to tax the same intangible property (e.g., a trust) if each had a legitimate jurisdictional claim (domicile of owner vs. situs of administration), weakening the strict domicile-only rule.
  4. Modern Context
    • Today, state taxation of intangibles often depends on statutes and nexus rules. For example, stocks may be taxed where the issuing corporation is incorporated, or bank accounts where the funds are managed, rather than solely at the owner’s domicile.

Federal Income Tax vs. State Property Tax

Your question blends IRC (federal income tax) and Union Refrigerator (state property tax). To clarify:

  • Federal Income Tax: The IRC taxes income from intangibles (e.g., dividends, royalties) based on the owner’s residence or the source of income (e.g., IRC Sections 861-865 for sourcing rules), not a strict domicile rule tied to Union Refrigerator. Intangibles themselves aren’t taxed; their income or disposition is.
  • State Property Tax: Union Refrigerator governs state jurisdiction over intangibles for ad valorem (property) taxes, generally favoring the owner’s domicile unless a business situs exists.

Thus, while intangibles are “everything other than tangibles,” their taxation at the owner’s domicile per Union Refrigerator applies to state property taxes, not federal income tax under the IRC.

Conclusion

  • Definition: Yes, anything not tangible (physical property) is intangible by definition in tax law.
  • Taxation per Union Refrigerator: For state property taxes, intangibles are generally taxed at the owner’s domicile, as suggested in Union Refrigerator v. Kentucky, unless a separate taxable situs is established. This doesn’t directly apply to federal income tax, where income from intangibles is taxed based on residency or source rules.
  • Historical Nuance: The domicile rule has eroded somewhat since 1905, with exceptions for business situs and multi-state taxation upheld by later Supreme Court cases.

If you meant to focus solely on federal income tax or a specific modern application, let me know, and I can refine the answer further!

QUESTION 3:

Please answer the last question solely on the basis of federal income tax.

ANSWER 3:

Focusing solely on federal income tax under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), here’s the answer to your question: “Is everything other than tangible property, by definition, intangible and taxed at the domicile of the owner per Union Refrigerator v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194?”

Tangible vs. Intangible Property in Federal Income Tax

In the context of the IRC, tangible property refers to physical assets like land, buildings, machinery, or equipment (e.g., as addressed in Sections 167, 263, and related Treasury Regulations like 26 CFR § 1.263(a)-3). Intangible property, by contrast, encompasses assets without physical form, such as:

  • Intellectual property (patents, trademarks, copyrights)
  • Financial assets (stocks, bonds, bank accounts)
  • Contractual rights (leases, licenses)
  • Goodwill or business reputation

Yes, under federal tax law, anything not classified as tangible property is, by definition, intangible property. This distinction is implicit in IRC provisions like Section 167 (depreciation) and Section 197 (amortization of intangibles), which treat tangibles and intangibles as mutually exclusive categories.

Taxation of Intangibles Under Federal Income Tax

The second part of your question—whether intangibles are “taxed at the domicile of the owner per Union Refrigerator v. Kentucky”—requires clarification, as Union Refrigerator is a state taxation case, not a federal income tax precedent. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Union Refrigerator (1905) established that, for state property tax purposes, intangible property is generally taxable at the owner’s domicile unless it has a separate situs. However, this principle does not directly govern federal income tax under the IRC.

For federal income tax purposes:

  • Intangibles Themselves Are Not Taxed: The IRC does not impose a direct tax on the ownership of intangible property (e.g., a stock or patent) based on its situs or the owner’s domicile. Instead, it taxes income derived from intangibles (e.g., dividends, interest, royalties, capital gains) or their disposition (e.g., sale).
  • Taxation Basis: The taxation of income from intangibles depends on:
    • Residency of the Owner: U.S. citizens and residents are taxed on their worldwide income from intangibles under IRC Section 61, regardless of where the intangible is “located” or where the owner is domiciled within the U.S. (Domicile, a state-law concept, is less relevant than federal tax residency.)
    • Source of Income: For nonresidents, income from intangibles is taxed based on its source (IRC Sections 861-865). For example:
      • Dividends from a U.S. corporation are U.S.-sourced and taxable to nonresidents (Section 871).
      • Royalties from a patent used in the U.S. are U.S.-sourced.
      • Capital gains from selling intangibles are generally not taxed unless connected to a U.S. trade or business (Section 865).
    • No Domicile Rule: Unlike state property taxes influenced by Union Refrigerator, federal income tax does not tie the taxation of intangibles (or their income) to the owner’s domicile. The IRC uses residency, citizenship, or income source, not the common-law mobilia sequuntur personam doctrine.

Role of Union Refrigerator in Federal Income Tax

Union Refrigerator v. Kentucky has no direct bearing on federal income tax. It addressed state jurisdiction to impose property taxes on tangible and intangible assets under the Due Process Clause, not federal income tax liability under the IRC. The Supreme Court’s suggestion that intangibles are taxed at the owner’s domicile applies to state ad valorem (property) taxes, not the federal framework. The IRC, enacted after 1905 (codified in 1939 and 1954), operates independently of this state taxation principle.

Conclusion

  • Definition: Yes, under federal income tax law, everything other than tangible property is intangible by definition.
  • Taxation: No, intangibles are not “taxed at the domicile of the owner per Union Refrigerator v. Kentucky” in the federal income tax context. The IRC taxes income from intangibles based on the owner’s residency (for U.S. persons) or the income’s source (for nonresidents), not domicile. Union Refrigerator applies to state property taxes, not federal income tax.

For federal purposes, the taxation of intangibles hinges on statutory rules (e.g., Sections 61, 861-865, 197), not the constitutional situs principle from 1905. If you have a specific intangible asset or scenario in mind, I can provide a more tailored analysis!

Posted in Definitions and tagged ,