Burnet v. Northern Trust Co.

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 283 U.S. 782, 51 S. Ct. 342

Decision Date: 3/2/1931

Docket Number: No. 535

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Burnet v. Northern Trust Co., 283 U.S. 782, 51 S. Ct. 342 (1931)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1931

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 4% most-cited · cited by 53 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1930s1940s1950s1960s1970s1980s

Courts citing this case

B.T.A.12

2d Cir.6

T.C.4

U.S.4

Ct. Cl.3

4th Cir.2

Most recently cited by10

1984Rifkind v. United States Cl. Ct.
1973Estate of McCabe v. United States Ct. Cl.
1972Estate of Thomson v. Commissioner T.C.
1968Commissioner v. Talbott 4th Cir.
1968Joy v. United States 6th Cir.
1967Friedmann v. United States 2d Cir.
1966United States v. O'Malley U.S.
1966Estate of Cohn v. United States S.D.N.Y.
1966Union Planters National Bank v. United States 6th Cir.
1964Savage v. United States 2d Cir.

Cites 1 case

May v. Heiner

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

Burnet, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, v. Northern Trust Co., Executor.

Attorneys

Mr. Walter E. Hope, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, with whom Solicitor General Thacher and Messrs. Clarence M. Charest, General Counsel, and Prew Savoy, Special Attorney, Bureau of Internal Revenue, were on the brief, for petitioner.
Mr. Edward H. Blanc argued the cause, and Messrs. Theodore Schmidt, John W. Davis, Russell L. Bradford, and Frederic Ullmann filed a brief, for respondent.
Messrs. John E. Hughes and Raymond M. White, by special leave of Court, filed briefs as amid curiae.
Mr. Seth T. Cole, by special leave of Court, filed a brief on behalf of the Tax Commission of the State of New York et al. as amid curiae.

majority Per Curiam:

The question in this case is that of the construction of § 402 (c) of the Revenue Act of 1921, c. 13(5, 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 affirmed upon the authority of May v. Heiner, 281 U. S. 238.