https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/296/344/
The term embraces associations as they may exist at common law. Hecht v. Malley, supra. We have already referred to the definitions, quoted in that case, showing the ordinary meaning of the term as applicable to a body of persons united without a charter “but upon the methods and forms used by incorporated bodies for the prosecution of some common enterprise.” These definitions, while helpful, are not to be pressed so far as to make mere formal procedure a controlling test. The provision itself negatives such a construction. Thus, unincorporated joint-stock companies have generally been regarded as bearing the closest resemblance to corporations. But, in the Revenue Acts, associations are mentioned separately, and are not to be treated as limited to “joint-stock companies,” although belonging to the same group. While the use of corporate forms may furnish persuasive evidence of the existence of an association, the absence of particular forms, or of the usual terminology of corporations, cannot be regarded as decisive. Thus, an association may not have “directors” or “officers,” but the “trustees” may function “in much the same manner as the directors in a corporation” for the purpose of carrying on the enterprise. The regulatory provisions of the trust instrument may take the place of “bylaws.” And, as there may be, under the reasoning in the Hecht case, an absence of control by beneficiaries such as is commonly exercised by stockholders in a business corporation, it cannot be considered to be essential to the existence of an association that those beneficially interested should hold meetings or elect their representatives. Again, while the faculty of transferring the interests of members without affecting the continuity of the enterprise may be deemed to be characteristic, the test of an association is not to be found in the mere formal evidence of interests or in a particular method of transfer.