Citation network
Snyder Vs. Bettman
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 01, 1903
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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 249 (1903) U.S. Supreme Court Snyder v. BettmanSearch
-
U.S. 249 (1903) Snyder v. BettmanSearch
-
for a corporate and public purpose. The case is, to a certain extent, the converse of those of the United States v. PerkinsSearch
-
U. S. 625 , and Plummer v. ColerSearch
-
and (2) that the tax was not a tax upon the property itself, but upon its transmission by will or descent. In Plummer v. ColerSearch
-
to lay such tax were wrongly decided. That question was exhaustively considered by this Court in Knowlton v. MooreSearch
-
deceased, and not by the sum of the legacies or distributive shares. It was held, following the cases of United States v. PerkinsSearch
-
U. S. 625 , and Magoun v. IllinoisSearch
-
the devolution of property is determined by the laws of the several states. The principles laid down in Knowlton v. MooreSearch
-
were reiterated in Murdock v. WardSearch
-
U. S. 139 , although the case was decided upon on the authority of Plummer v. ColerSearch
-
upon documents connected with the devolution of the property of a deceased person. And yet, as stated in Knowlton v. MooreSearch
-
by this Court, it does not seem to have been seriously questioned, and is a legitimate inference from McGuire v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Pervear v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Wall. 475, and Royall v. VirginiaSearch
-
U. S. 572 , 116 U. S. 580 . See also Ould v. RichmondSearch
-
Humphreys v. NorfolkSearch
-
the amount of the tax without being legally objectionable as a direct burden upon such property. Thus, in Van Allen v. TheSearch
-
a tax upon deposits was upheld though such deposits were invested in United States securities. Society for Savings v. CoiteSearch
-
Hamilton Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
measured by its dividends, though such dividends were derived from interest upon government bonds. Home Ins. Co. v. NewSearch
-
to direct or indirect taxation by the United States. The doctrine has nowhere been more clearly stated than in Pollock v. Farmers'Search
-
determined that the property and revenues of municipal corporations are not subjects of federal taxation. Collector v. DaySearch
-
United States v. RailroadSearch
-
It is true that in United States v. PerkinsSearch
-
that a bequest of bonds of the United States was subject to a state inheritance tax. It is also true that, in Knowlton v. MooreSearch
-
by death. On the other hand, the right of the United States to levy and inheritance tax, which was upheld in Knowlton v. MooreSearch
-
that is, of taxation alone, vested in the government of the United States, was explicitly pointed out in Knowlton v. MooreSearch
-
So also, the difference between the two had been previously accentuated in Magoun v. IllinoisSearch
-
the transmission or receipt of property on the occasion of death. This was clearly pointed out in United States v. PerkinsSearch
-
as tax upon the right of the municipality to receive the legacy. It was held, after great deliberation, in Knowlton v. MooreSearch
-
in the hands of the executor before the municipality receives its legacy. It was not only directly held in Knowlton v. MooreSearch
-
This conclusion was absolutely essential to the construction of the statute which was sustained in Knowlton v. MooreSearch
-
because it is on the estate in the hands of the executor and not a burden on the recipient, when the case of Knowlton v. MooreSearch
-
it may be lawfully imposed, the doctrine overthrows the rule announced by Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
more directly upon the right of the corporation to take the bequest than did the tax which was condemned in McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
the bonds than is the tax in this case, on the right of the municipality to take, and yet, as I have said, in Pollock v. Farmers'Search
-
indirect, it could not be levied where there was no power to tax at all. The distinction was pointed out in Knowlton v. MooreSearch
-
where, in referring to the statement of Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Snyder v. BettmanSearch
-
of the United States v. PerkinsSearch
-
and Plummer v. ColerSearch
-
In Plummer v. ColerSearch
-
Knowlton v. MooreSearch
-
of United States v. PerkinsSearch
-
and Magoun v. IllinoisSearch
-
of Plummer v. ColerSearch
-
McGuire v. MassachusettsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial