Skip to main content

Wisconsin Central v. United States

Updated Sep 19, 2026

In brief

Wisconsin Central won: the Supreme Court said its employee stock options were not taxable under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act and sent the case back to the lower court.

Where it stands
Decided

Decided 5-4 · June 21, 2018 · Opinion by Justice Gorsuch

What it’s about
The case asked whether a railroad must pay Railroad Retirement Tax Act taxes on stock transferred to employees when they exercise stock options.
Who it affects
The ruling means these stock options are not taxable compensation under this Act because stock is not currency used as a medium of exchange. The lower court must continue the case under that ruling.

Summary: written with AI from the case record.

Illustration for Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States
Conceptual illustration · AI-generated

What it's about

The Supreme Court held that these stock options are not taxable under the Act because stock is not "money remuneration."

The broader issue was whether a 1937 tax law covered a newer form of employee pay: stock options.

Question presented

Whether stock that a railroad transfers to its employees is taxable under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act, 26 U.S.C. § 3231(e)(l).

What the Court decided

Holding

Employee stock options are not taxable “compensation” under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act because they are not “money remuneration.” When Congress adopted the Act in 1937, “money” was understood as currency “issued by [a] recognized authority as a medium of exchange.” Pretty obviously, stock options do not fall within that definition. While stock can be bought or sold for money, it isn’t usually considered a medium of exchange. Few people value goods and services in terms of stock, or buy groceries and pay rent with stock. Adding the word “remuneration” also does not alter the meaning of the phrase. 856 F. 3d 490, reversed and remanded.

Result
Reversed

The vote

  • Joined the judgment
  • Dissented
  • Wrote an opinion
Majority · 5joined the Court's opinion
  1. Gorsuchwrote the opinion
  2. Roberts
  3. Kennedy
  4. Thomas
  5. Alito
Dissenting · 4disagreed with the result
  1. Breyerwrote the dissent
  2. Kagan
  3. Ginsburg
  4. Sotomayor
5 justices joined the judgment, 4 dissented.

From the opinions

“In my view, the language itself is ambiguous but other traditional tools of statutory interpretation point to the answer, “yes.””

— Justice Breyer(dissent)

What's next

The case now goes back to the lower court for further proceedings under the Supreme Court’s ruling. The Supreme Court has finished its action in this docket.

Documents

2

Docket activity

6
  • New analysis added

    Sep 19, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Case Briefing

    Sep 19, 2026 · Generated

  • AI analysis generated: Decision Record

    Sep 19, 2026 · Generated

  • New analysis added

    Sep 3, 2026 · Court records

  • Opinion added: opinion

    Jun 21, 2018 · Court records

Show 1 more
  • Brief added: Questions Presented

    Court records

More questions

4
What did Wisconsin Central v. United States decide?
The Court decided that employee stock options are not taxable compensation under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act because they are not pay in money.
What reason did the Court give for excluding the options from taxes?
It said “money” means currency used as a medium of exchange. Stock options do not fit that meaning, even though stock can be bought or sold for money.
Who won Wisconsin Central v. United States?
Wisconsin Central won; the Court overturned the Seventh Circuit’s ruling and said the options were not taxable under this Act.
What happens next in Wisconsin Central?
The case goes back to the lower court for further proceedings under the Supreme Court’s ruling. The Supreme Court has completed its action in this docket.

Sources

Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.

Checked Sep 19, 2026Methodology

Court records and filings

Reporting and analysis