Reynolds v. Cooper
291 U.S. 192 (1934)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Reynolds v. Cooper, 291 U.S. 192 (1934)

Reynolds v. Cooper

No. 227

Argued December 11, 1933

Decided January 15, 1934*

291 U.S. 192

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Decided upon the authority of Helvering v. Falk, ante, p. 291 U. S. 183.

64 F.2d 44 affirmed.

Writs of certiorari, 290 U.S. 616, to review judgments affirming recoveries by taxpayers in three suits against the collector, which were tried together in the District Court and on appeal.

MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

In each of these causes, a beneficiary received from trustees royalties arising from a lease of oil and gas lands in Wyoming. Taxes were exacted upon the full amounts so received. Separate suits were brought to recover proper allowances for depletion. The respondents prevailed in both of the courts below. Here, the causes were heard together.

Page 291 U. S. 193

The Solicitor General says:

"The question is identical with that raised in Helvering v. Falk, No. 225, October Term, 1933, and the argument made in the Government's brief in that case is likewise applicable here. . . . There is therefore substantially no difference between the position of the beneficiaries in this case and the Falk case."

The judgments below are affirmed upon authority of Helvering v. Falk, ante, p. 291 U. S. 183.

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, MR. JUSTICE STONE, and MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO think that these cases are to be distinguished from Helvering v. Falk, ante, p. 291 U. S. 183, because of the nature of the duties imposed upon the trustees, and of the remainder interest granted to the beneficiaries by the trust instrument presently involved, and accordingly concur in the result.

* Together with No. 22, Reynolds, Collector of Internal Revenue v. Barbara v. Cooper, and No. 229, Reynolds, Collector of Internal Revenue v. Richard F. Cooper et al., certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeal for the Tenth Circuit.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.