Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/296/488/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/296/488/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Helvering v. McIlvaine, 296 U.S. 488 (1936)
Helvering v. McIlvaine
No. 566
Argued December 17, 1935
Decided January 6, 1936
296 U.S. 488
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Decided upon the authority of United States Trust Co. v. Commissioner, ante p. 296 U. S. 481.
78 F.2d 787 affirmed.
Certiorari to review a judgment affirming a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals, 27 B.T.A. 304, which overruled an additional tax assessment on a trustee.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented in this case is similar to that involved in United States Trust Co. v. Commissioner, ante, p. 296 U. S. 481. By amendments under a reserved power, the terms of an original trust created by John P. Wilson, in 1913, were altered with the intention of creating three separate trusts. The Board of Tax Appeals, upon findings supported by evidence, concluded that this purpose was accomplished, and hence that there was no deficiency. 29 B.T.A. 304. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Board. 78 F.2d 787. We granted certiorari because of the conflict with the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case of the United States Trust Co., supra, 75 F.2d 973, and, for the reasons stated in our opinion in that case, the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
