MORSMAN, ADMINISTRATOR,
v.
BURNET, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Morsman, as administrator of a deceased person's estate, challenged the application of Section 302(c) of the Revenue Act of 1924 to transfers or trusts, arguing it was an improper tax. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and upheld the tax as constitutional, relying on its prior interpretation of the analogous provision in the 1918 Act in May v. Heiner.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam:
The question in this case is that of the construction of § 302 (c) of the Revenue Act of 1924, c. 234, 43 Stat. 253, 304, a provision similar to that of § 402 (c) of the Revenue Act of 1918, c. 18, 40 Stat. 1057, 1097, which has already been construed by this Court, and, in this view, there being no question of the constitutional authority of the Congress to impose prospectively a tax with respect to transfers or trusts of the sort here involved, the judgment, of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is reversed upon the authority of May v. Heiner, 281 U. S. 238.
Mr. Edward H. Blanc, with whom Messrs. Edgar M. Morsman, Jr., and Russell L. Bradford were on the brief, for petitioner. Solicitor General Thacker, and Messrs. Walter E. Hope, Assistant Secretary of the: Treasury, Claude R. Branch, and Clarence M. Charest, General Counsel, William T. Sabine, Jr., and Prew Savoy, Special Attorneys, Bureau of Internal Revenue, submitted for respondent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (28 total)
-
Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1940)…a life estate in property conveyed inter vivos, did not constitute a sufficient postponement of the remainder to bring it into the grantor’s gross estate. May v. Heiner, 281 U. S. 238; Burnet v. Northern Trust Co., 283 U. S. 782; Morsman v. Burnet, 283 U. S. 783; McCormick v. Burnet, 283 U. S. 784. The speculative arguments that may be drawn from ad hoc legislation affecting one set of decisions and the want of such legislation to modify another set of decisions dealing with a somewhat different though cogn…
-
Hassett v. Welch, 303 U.S. 303 (U.S. 1938)…. Compare Shwab v. Doyle, supra, at p. 536; Lewellyn v. Frick, 268 U. S. 238, 252. May v. Heiner, 281 U. S. 238, construing § 402 (c) of the Revenue Act of 1918, 40 Stat. 1057, 1097. Burnet v. Northern Trust Co., 283 U. S. 782; Morsman v. Burnet, 283 U. S. 783; McCormick v. Burnet, 283 U. S. 784, construing § 402 (c) of the Revenue Act of 1921 and § 302 (c) of the Revenue Act of 1924. Cong. Rec., 71st Cong., 3rd Sess., Vol. 74, Part 7, p. 7198. Cong. Rec., 71st Cong., 3rd Sess., Vol. 74, Part 7, pp. 719…
-
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Est. of Church, 335 U.S. 632 (U.S. 1949)…y v. Heiner in three cases in per curiam opinions, thus upsetting the century-old historic meaning and the long standing Treasury interpretation of the “possession or enjoyment” clause. Burnet v. Northern Trust Co., 283 U. S. 782; Morsman v. Burnet, 283 U. S. 783; McCormick v. Burnet, 283 U.S. 784. March 3, 1931, the next day after the three per curiam opinions were rendered, Acting Secretary of the Treasury Ogden Mills wrote a letter to the Speaker of the House explaining the holdings in May v. Heiner and…1 / 5
Previewing 3 of 28 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- MAY v. Heiner, 281 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1930)