Legal Opinion
Helvering v. Oregon Mutual Life Insurance
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided December 9, 1940No. 564PublishedCited by 79 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Black
In computing its net taxable income for 1933 and 1934, respondent took a deduction of 3%% of the reserves it had set aside with respect to its combined policies of' life, health, and accident insurance. Section 203 (a) (2) of the 1932 and 1934 Revenue Acts permits a life insurance company to deduct from its gross income “An amount equal to [3%%] of the mean of the reserve funds required by law . . .” That respondent was a life insurance company as defined by the Revenue Acts and that it was required by law to maintain reserves to protect both death and disability benefits were conceded. The…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Manhattan General Equipment Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Morrissey v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Koshland v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- National Life Insurance v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Murphy Oil Co. v. BurnetSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by79 opinions
- United States v. Cooper Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- B.S.W. Group, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1978
- United States v. Consumer Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Alinco Life Insurance Company v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1967
- Principal Mutual Life Insurance Company v. The United States, Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
74 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.