Legal Opinion
Estate of Putnam v. Commissioner
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided March 26, 1945No. 534PublishedCited by 65 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Reed
This case brings here for review a judgment which applies Section 42, Revenue Act of 1938, 1 so as to “accrue” corporate dividends on the date of their declaration rather than the later record or payment dates. The result is that the dividends are taxable as income to a decedent taxpayer instead of to his estate.
Certiorari was granted 2 because of a conflict in conclu sion between Tar Products Corp. v. Commissioner, 130 F. 2d 866, and this case as to the date of accrual of corporate dividends. The resolution of this conflict is complicated by further conflicts between the decision below and…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- United States v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Burnet v. HarmelSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Lyeth v. HoeySupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Spring City Foundry Co. v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Palmer v. BenderSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by65 opinions
- Trust Under the Will of Bingham v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Kean v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1972
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. LindeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1954
- Federal Savings & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Kearney Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1945
- Long Poultry Farms, Incorporated v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1957
60 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.