MORSMAN v. BURNET, 283 U.S. 783 (1931)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

MORSMAN v. BURNET, 283 U.S. 783 (1931)

283 U.S. 783

Edgar M. MORSMAN, Jr., Administrator of the Estate of Edgar M. Morsman, petitioner,
v.
David BURNET, Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
No. 581.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 2, 1931

Mr. Edgar M. Morsman, Jr., of Omaha, Neb., for petitioner.

The Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The question in this case is that of the construction of section 302( c) of the Revenue Act of 1924, c. 234, 43 Stat. 253, 304 (26 USCA 1094 note), a provision similar to that of section 402(c) of the Revenue Act of 1918, c. 18, 40 Stat. 1057, 1097, which has already been construed by this Court, and, in this view, there being no question of the constitutional authority of the Congress to impose prosepctively a tax with respect to transfers or tursts of the sort here involved, the judgment of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 44 F.(2d) 902 is reversed upon the authority of May v. Heiner, 281 U.S. 238, 50 S. Ct. 286, 67 A. L. R. 1244.


U.S. Supreme Court

MORSMAN v. BURNET, 283 U.S. 783 (1931)

 283 U.S. 783

Edgar M. MORSMAN, Jr., Administrator of the Estate of Edgar M. Morsman, petitioner,
v.
David BURNET, Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
No. 581.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 2, 1931

Mr. Edgar M. Morsman, Jr., of Omaha, Neb., for petitioner.

The Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The question in this case is that of the construction of section 302( c) of the Revenue Act of 1924, c. 234, 43 Stat. 253, 304 (26 USCA 1094 note), a provision similar to that of section 402(c) of the Revenue Act of 1918, c. 18, 40 Stat. 1057, 1097, which has already been construed by this Court, and, in this view, there being no question of the constitutional authority of the Congress to impose prosepctively a tax with respect to transfers or tursts of the sort here involved, the judgment of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 44 F.(2d) 902 is reversed upon the authority of May v. Heiner, 281 U.S. 238, 50 S. Ct. 286, 67 A. L. R. 1244.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law 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.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.