green
Positive treatment
3.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1931 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1931
1978
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Estate of Daniel McNichol Deceased, Ellen McNichol Evangelista and Joseph G. McNichol Executors v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Although May v. Heiner made no reference to Nichols v. Coolidge, both decisions turned upon the fact that legal title had been technically transferred prior to death, and hence the transfer was not “intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment at or after his death”. [ 281 U.S. 238 , 50 S.Ct. 287 ], This dispositive principle was reaffirmed on March 2, 1931 in Burnet v. Northern Trust Co., 1931, 283 U.S. 782 , 51 S.Ct. 342 , 75 L.Ed. 1412 ; Morsman v. Burnet, 1931, 283 U.S. 783 , 51 S.Ct. 343 , 75 L.Ed. 1412 , and McCormick v. Burnet, 1931, 283 U.S. 784 , 51 S.Ct. 343 , 75 L.Ed. 1413…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Byrum
(2×)
See McCormick v. Burnet, 283 U. S. 784 (1931); Helvering v. Duke, 290 U. S. 591 (1933) (affirmed by an equally divided Court).
cited
Cited "see"
Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Commissioner
See McCormick v. Burnet, 283 U.S. 784 ; Elizabeth B.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
The Estate of Debe W. Hubbard, the Merchants National Bank of Mobile v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
See also McCormick v. Burnet, 283 U.S. 784 , 51 S.Ct. 343 , 75 L.Ed. 1413 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cyrus H. McCormick Executors of the Last Will and Testament of Nettie Fowler McCormick Deceased, Pettio Ners
v.
David Burnet, Commissioner of Internal Revenue
v.
David Burnet, Commissioner of Internal Revenue
542.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 23, 1931.
283 U.S. 784
Mr. George T. Rogers, with whom Messrs. Horace Kent Tenney, Henry F. Tenney, Roger Sherman, and Robert N. Miller were on the brief, for petitioners., Assistant Attorney Géneral Youngquist, with whom Solicitor General Thacher, and Messrs. Sewall Key and J. Louis Monarch, Special Assistants to the Attorney General, Erwin N. Griswold and Clarence M. Charest, General Counsel, and Prew Savoy, Special Attorney, Bureau of Internal Revenue, were on the brief, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 142 opinions | Published
[*784]
Per Curiam:
The question in this case is that of the construction of § 402 (c) of the Revenue Act of 1921, c.,‘136, 42 Stat. 227, 278, 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 Seventh. Circuit is reversed upon the authority of May v. Heiner, 281 U. S. 238.