Legal Opinion · Dissent

Helvering v. Reynolds

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided May 26, 1941No. 684Published

1Dissent

Me. Justice Roberts:

I disagreed with the decisions of the Court in Maguire v. Commissioner, ante, p. 1, Helvering v. Gambrill, ante, p. 11, and Helvering v. Campbell, ante, p. 15, construing the meaning of the phrase “time of distribution to the taxpayer,” as used in § 113a (5) of the Revenue Acts of .1928 and 1932. My dissent was bottomed upon the view that to construe that phrase as meaning the time of the distribution to a trustee, in a case where the taxpayer could neither receive nor enjoy the property, was to disregard the unambiguous words of the statute. I recognize the binding force…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Brewster v. GageSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  2. Helvering v. San Joaquin Fruit & Investment Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
  3. Hartley v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  4. Becker v. Anchor Realty & Investment Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1934
  5. Hopkins v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1934

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API