Connection lost
Server error
WELCH v. HELVERING Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A taxpayer voluntarily paid the discharged debts of his former bankrupt employer to bolster his new business’s reputation. The Supreme Court held these payments were not “ordinary” business expenses and thus not tax-deductible, classifying them as capital expenditures for goodwill.
Legal Significance: Established the influential standard that a deductible business expense must be “ordinary” not merely for the individual, but common and accepted within the general business community, distinguishing current expenses from capital outlays for goodwill.
WELCH v. HELVERING Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The petitioner, Thomas Welch, was the former secretary of the E.L. Welch Company, a grain business that was adjudged bankrupt and received a discharge from its debts. After the bankruptcy, Welch entered into a contract to conduct a grain commission business under his own name. To reestablish his reputation and solidify his credit with customers of the former company, he voluntarily undertook to pay the discharged debts of the bankrupt corporation. Over five successive years, Welch made substantial payments to the old company’s creditors. He sought to deduct these payments on his personal income tax returns as business expenses. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed the deductions, ruling they were not ordinary and necessary expenses but rather capital expenditures for the development of goodwill. The Board of Tax Appeals and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the Commissioner’s decision, leading to this appeal.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Are voluntary payments made by a taxpayer to the creditors of a separate, bankrupt corporation for which he was a former officer deductible as “ordinary and necessary” expenses of his current trade or business under the Revenue Act?
No. The payments are not deductible because they fail to meet the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo co
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Are voluntary payments made by a taxpayer to the creditors of a separate, bankrupt corporation for which he was a former officer deductible as “ordinary and necessary” expenses of his current trade or business under the Revenue Act?
Conclusion
This landmark decision provides the foundational, though fact-sensitive, definition of an "ordinary" Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud e
Legal Rule
To be deductible under the Revenue Act (the predecessor to I.R.C. § Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehende
Legal Analysis
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Cardozo focused on the distinction between Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Payments made to creditors of a former bankrupt company to bolster