McCormick v. Burnet

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 283 U.S. 784

Decision Date: 3/2/1931

Docket Number: No. 542

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: McCormick v. Burnet, 283 U.S. 784 (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 2% most-cited · cited by 97 decisions
97
Citing decisions
1
Authorities cited
6+
Courts citing

Citations by decade

55
13
10
15
3
1
1930s1940s1950s1960s1970s1980s

Courts citing this case

B.T.A.21
2d Cir.10
T.C.7
U.S.7
Ct. Cl.5
7th Cir.4
Most recently cited by10
  • 1984Rifkind v. United States Cl. Ct.
  • 1973Estate of McCabe v. United States Ct. Cl.
  • 1972United States v. Byrum U.S.
  • 1972Estate of Thomson v. Commissioner T.C.
  • 1969Second National Bank v. United States D. Conn.
  • 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.
Cites 1 case

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


Opinion

McCormick et al., Executors, v. Burnet, Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

Attorneys

  • 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.
majority 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.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.