In Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), the Supreme Court considered whether the Sixteenth Amendment permitted Congress to tax as income a taxpayer's stock dividend made against accumulated profits of the issuing corporation. The Court in Eisner defined income as the "gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined." 252 U.S. at 207, 40 S. Ct. at 193. Applying this definition, the Court focused on the phrase "derived from capital," which included a "gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital . . . and received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal . . . ." Id. The Court first discussed the nature of a stockholder's interest, noting that a stockholder "has the right to have the assets employed in the enterprise . . . but has no right to withdraw capital or profits." Id., 252 U.S. at 208, 40 S. Ct. at 194. Next, the Court explained that a stock dividend did not involve realization of gain by the stockholder but rather "shows that the company's accumulated profits have been capitalized, instead of distributed to the stockholders or retained as surplus available for distribution in money or in kind should opportunity offer." Id., 252 U.S. at 211, 40 S. Ct. at 194. According to the Court, the "essential and controlling fact is that the stockholder has received nothing out of the company's assets for his separate use and benefit." Id. Based on this reasoning, the Court held that the Sixteenth Amendment did not permit Congress to "tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder." Id., 252 U.S. at 219, 40 S. Ct. at 197. The Supreme Court considered whether the Sixteenth Amendment permitted Congress to tax as income a taxpayer's stock dividend made against accumulated profits of the issuing corporation. The Court in Eisner defined income as the "gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined." Applying this definition, the Court focused on the phrase "derived from capital," which included a "gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital . . . and received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal." Eisner v. Macomber merely concluded that stock dividends are not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment because the taxpayer received no separate asset from the company for his own individual use and benefit. In short, the taxpayer realized no gain that was severed from and independent of the company's assets. The Court in Eisner did not discuss what constituted a "gain derived from labor." The U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of "income" in the Sixteenth Amendment, which authorized Congress to tax income. It examined the meaning of the term in common usage and concluded that income was "the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,... including profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets." Id., 252 U.S. at 207, 40 S.Ct. at 193. Accordingly, capital gains are income for both federal and state income tax purposes. 26 U.S.C. 61(a)(3) and 68 O.S. 2011 2353(10). Most states that have considered the question classify realized capital gains as income for the purpose of child support computation, including capital gain from the sale of a residence.