combined". The court had to construe the word "income" as used in s. 38 of the Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909, which imposed an excise tax "equivalent to one per centum upon the entire net income .... received by it from all sources during the year". In Eisner v. Macomber(') referred to by this Court in Mafat/al's case(2 ), the court had to construe the word "income" aslused in the XVI Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which is : · "The -Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration," nd observed, at p. 206: "Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power · to legislate, _and within whose limitations· alone that power can be. lawfully exercised. _ . . . . For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term 'income,' as used in co=on _ speech, in order to determine its meaning in the Amend-. ment; and, having formed also a correct judgment as to the nature of a stock dividend, we shall find it easy to decide the ·matter at issue. After examining dictionaries in co=on use ... ; • , we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of August 5, 1909. .. : 'Income may be defuied as the gain derived from capital, from labour, or from both - combined,' provided it be understood to include profit · gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets. to which it was applied in the Doyle case .•. -..••• Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income, essential for a correct solution of the present controversy." . The definition of "income" given in this case has been followed .in the other two cases referred to in Mafarlals case(2 ) ¥iz., Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka(8 ) and United States (1) 252 U.S. 189=64 L. Ed. 521. (2) [1955) 1 S.C.R. 829. (3) 255 U.S. 50965 L. Ed. 751.
