Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Reynolds Vs. Cooper

Reynolds vs Cooper

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Jan-15-1934
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/96022

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
291 U.S. 192
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Reynolds

Respondent

Cooper

Excerpt

..... 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 mc reynolds 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.

Full Judgment

Reynolds v. Cooper - 291 U.S. 192 (1934)
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 Mc REYNOLDS 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.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial