Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States (17-530)

argument 17-530

Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 49 min 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the legal definition of “money remuneration” under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case seventeen five thirty, Wisconsin Central versus the United States. Mr Dupree.

Charles D. Dupree 0:08

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The Railroad Retirement Tax Act levies a payroll tax on railroad employees money remuneration. The question presented in this case is whether remuneration in shares of stock is remuneration in money. We believe it is not for a simple reason stock is not money. The plain meaning of money is a generally accepted medium of exchange, and stock is not that. You can't buy how about a check? We think a check would constitute a medium of exchange, Justice Kennedy. It it essentially transfers currency. There is a legal right to obtain currency on a bank draft. So we do think that a check would constitute money remuneration.

Unknown 0:51

So you end the slippery slope about that at that point. What about a bond, US savings bond?

Charles D. Dupree 0:57

Th that would not be, Your Honor. We don't think a bond would constitute money remuneration. Typically the things that would constitute money remuneration obviously would be cash, paper notes, coins, but it would also encompass more modern ways of transferring currencies such as direct deposit or a check. We think that the plain meaning of money remuneration is also confirmed when this tax provision is viewed in the larger context of the tax code as a whole. And that's true both for the tax code as it existed during the Great Depression, when this railroad statute was enacted, and also the code as it exists today.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1:33

That when the act was enacted Um Compensation was in money. But over time compensation in the form of stock has become more frequent and it serves the same purpose. So why can't one read any form of monetary compensation to include Any form of compensation readily convertible. Into cash.

Charles D. Dupree 2:04

Well, Justice Ginsburg, what the historical record shows is that at the time of the Great Depression, when this statute was enacted, railroad employees were actually compensated through a variety of means, both cash based and also non cash based. Railroads gave their employees everything from in-kind benefits, free transportation, property. And so that same issue that presents itself today, where railroad employees get a variety of different types and forms of remuneration. Also existed back in the Great Depression. And what Congress did was it said we recognize that railroad employees get a variety of types of remuneration, including stock, by the way, at that time, and yet it drew the line instead of the remote.

Charles D. Dupree 2:41

How common

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 2:42

was stock at that time?

Charles D. Dupree 2:43

How common was it? It was sufficiently common. There was a report cited in our papers from the National Industrial Conference that talked about how going back to the 19th century, many railroads offered stock purchase plans to their employees. So it certainly was a well-recognized form of remuneration back when this statute was enacted. And I think if this court were to compare the language that Congress chose to put in the Railroad statute compared to what it put in FICA, which was enacted virtually simultaneously in the Great Depression, that underscores our interpretation of money remuneration. FICA sweeps broadly, as this Court has noted, it encompasses all remuneration, including and this is critical text, including any remuneration that is not in cash, but that can be valued in cash.

Charles D. Dupree 3:31

Anthony M. Kennedy 3:31

Dupree. Um in the way you talked about it, it's not just that we have to give meaning to the term money. I think you're quite right to say that the term we have to look at is money remuneration. Is that correct? That's the key term, yes, Your Honor. And so that's really money In a compen uh in a compensation scheme, right? I mean that's what that means. Money remuneration. That's right. So let's even take your own definition. Um which I think that there's a lot to be said for. Your definition tends uh of money tends to be the one that's first in the dictionaries. So you said a generally accepted medium of exchange. But now you put that with the word remuneration, in other words, in a compensation scheme.