Which case is cited as the business purpose doctrine: Gregory v. Helvering or Ableman v. Booth?
Gregory v. Helvering Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court concerned with U.S. income tax law. The case is cited as part of the basis for two legal doctrines: the business purpose doctrine and the doctrine of substance over form. The business purpose doctrine is essentially that where a transaction has no substantial business purpose other than the tax avoidance and tax evasion|avoidance or reduction]] of Federal tax, the tax law will not regard the transaction. The doctrine of substance over form is essentially that, for Federal tax purposes, a taxpayer is bound by the economic substance of a transaction where the economic substance varies from its legal form.
Button-Fastener case The Button-Fastener" Case, Heaton-Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co., also known as the Peninsular Button-Fastener" Case, was for a time a highly influential decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Many courts of appeals, and the United States Supreme Court in the "A.B. Dick case" adopted its "inherency doctrine"—"the argument that, since the patentee may withhold his patent altogether from public use, he must logically and necessarily be permitted to impose any conditions which he chooses upon any use which he may allow of it." In 1917, however, the Supreme Court expressly overruled the "Button-Fastener" Case and the "A.B. Dick" case, in the "Motion Picture Patents" case.