Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Commissioner Vs. Estate of Hubert

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 18, 1997

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, 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

43 entries 4 linked 39 unlinked
Show
  1. Sonneborn Brothers Vs. Cureton US Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1923
  2. United States Vs. Correll US Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1967
  3. United States Vs. Stapf US Supreme Court · Dec 02, 1963
  4. United States Vs. Cartwright US Supreme Court · May 07, 1973
  5. Commissioner v. Estate
    Search
  6. Of Hubert - 520 U.S. 93 (1997) October Term, 1996 Syllabus Commissioner of Internal Revenue V. Estate
    Search
  7. the controlling valuation date) of the income expected to be used to pay administration expenses. Cf. Ithaca Trust Co. v. United
    Search
  8. b), as interpreted in United States v. Stapf
    Search
  9. T. C. 314 (1993). The court noted it had resolved the same issue against the Commissioner in Estate of Street v. Commissioner
    Search
  10. the Sixth Circuit's decision in Street and with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Burke v. United
    Search
  11. further supported by Justice Holmes' explanation of valuation theory in his opinion for the Court in Ithaca Trust Co. v. United
    Search
  12. We interpreted this language in United States v. Stapf
    Search
  13. estate tax valuation theory that, in the plurality's view, dovetails nicely with our decision in Ithaca Trust Co. v. United
    Search
  14. or ruling because the entity promulgating it did not really want to have to adopt it. See Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain
    Search
  15. West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey
    Search
  16. Commissioner's expressed preference for the second one is worthy of deference. National Muffler Dealers Assn., Inc. v. United
    Search
  17. requires that the marital deduction be reduced, see, e. g., Brief for Government Appellee in Ballantine v. Tomlinson
    Search
  18. Brief for Government Appellee in Alston v. United
    Search
  19. National Muffler Dealers Assn., Inc. v. United
    Search
  20. States, 440 U. S. 472 , 477 (1979), quoting United States v. Moore
    Search
  21. National Muffler Dealers Assn., Inc., supra, at 476, quoting United States v. Cartwright
    Search
  22. U. S. 546 , 550 (1973), in turn quoting United States v. Correll
    Search
  23. U. S. 299 , 307 (1967). See also Cottage Savings Assn. v. Commissioner
    Search
  24. the marital bequest, was repeatedly rejected by the Tax Court and the Courts of Appeals. See, e. g., Estate of Street v. Commissioner
    Search
  25. Estate of Whittle v. Commissioner
    Search
  26. Estate of Richardson v. Commissioner
    Search
  27. concurrence acknowledge, one component of an asset's value is its discounted future income. See, e. g., Maass v. Higgins
    Search
  28. b) 2 The plurality's reference to Ithaca Trust Co. v. United
    Search
  29. argued that such a payment does reduce the value of the marital deduction. See, e. g., Ballantine v. Tomlinson
    Search
  30. Alston v. United
    Search
  31. Estate of Street v. Commis-
    Search
  32. see United States v. Stapf
    Search
  33. see National Muffler Dealers Assn., Inc. v. United
    Search
  34. Syllabus Commissioner of Internal Revenue V. Estate
    Search
  35. Cf. Ithaca Trust Co. v. United
    Search
  36. Estate of Street v. Commissioner
    Search
  37. Burke v. United
    Search
  38. Ithaca Trust Co. v. United
    Search
  39. See Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain
    Search
  40. Ballantine v. Tomlinson
    Search
  41. United States v. Moore
    Search
  42. Cottage Savings Assn. v. Commissioner
    Search
  43. Maass v. Higgins
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial