## Facts

- James M. Hunley and his wife, Alice Josephine Hunley, filed a petition in the United States Tax Court challenging an income tax deficiency determined by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
- James Hunley was a well-known businessman in his community.
- Hunley purchased shares of stock in State Life of Illinois (State Life), a life-insurance company.
- State Life sold Hunley the stock at a price below the stock’s market value.
- State Life’s president considered Hunley a “center of influence,” meaning a person whose community standing might help State Life by recommending salespeople and suggesting prospects to buy State Life policies or stock.
- State Life offered the special price based on its own expectation that Hunley might provide such future assistance.
- Hunley did not know State Life viewed him as a “center of influence.”
- Hunley did not realize he had received a special bargain price.
- Hunley was not asked to provide referrals or other assistance to State Life, and he never provided any assistance.
- The Commissioner assessed a deficiency, asserting that the difference between the stock’s market value and the amount Hunley paid (the bargain element) had to be included in Hunley’s gross income for the year of purchase.

## Issues

1. Whether the bargain element in Hunley’s purchase of State Life stock below market value was includible in gross income in the year of purchase.
2. Whether the bargain element could be treated as taxable compensation for services when Hunley neither performed services nor agreed to do so and was unaware of any special pricing.
3. Whether the bargain element was taxable as an accession to wealth merely because the purchase price was below market value.

## Decision

- The Tax Court held for the Hunleys.
- The court concluded the bargain element was not includible in gross income in the year Hunley purchased the stock.
- The court rejected the Commissioner’s argument that the discount was compensation for services because there was no express or implied agreement for services and no services were requested or performed.
- The court also rejected the alternative theory that the bargain element was taxable solely because Hunley received an economic benefit at purchase.

## Legal Principles

- A discount or bargain element is includible in gross income as compensation only when the facts show it was transferred in exchange for services rendered or services the taxpayer agreed to render.
- The transferor’s unilateral expectation of future help, without a communicated understanding and mutual assent, does not create taxable compensation.
- The taxpayer’s lack of awareness of a special concession supports a finding that there was no bargain-for exchange giving the discount the character of compensation.
- A mere favorable purchase price, without a compensatory arrangement or other income-producing transfer, generally does not create taxable income upon acquisition; tax consequences ordinarily arise through basis and are realized on a later sale or disposition.

## Conclusion

Hunley v. Commissioner holds that the bargain element from purchasing stock below market value was not taxable income in the year of purchase where the seller’s reduced price reflected only its uncommunicated hope for future assistance, and the buyer neither knew of the special pricing nor agreed to, was asked to, or did provide services.


Hunley v. Commissioner, 25 T.C.M. 355 (1966)