Citation network
Untermyer Vs. Anderson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 09, 1928
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
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 440 (1928) U.S. Supreme Court Untermyer v. AndersonSearch
-
U.S. 440 (1928) Untermyer v. AndersonSearch
-
CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. The gift tax provisions of the Revenue Act, approved June 2, 1924 ( see Blodgett v. HoldenSearch
-
circuit court of appeals. The questions now presented for consideration are similar to those involved in Boldgett v. HoldenSearch
-
stated is material, the same rule of law must govern both cases. Two opinions were announced in Blodgett v. HoldenSearch
-
adopted by four of us in Blodgett v. HoldenSearch
-
the beginning of the year. A tax may be levied for past privileges and protection as well as for those to come. Wagner v. BaltimoreSearch
-
Billings v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Stockdale v. AtlanticSearch
-
a century, it has been settled that a law of Congress imposing a tax may be retroactive in its operation. Stockdale v. AtlanticSearch
-
Lake Shore & M. S. Railroad Co. v. RoseSearch
-
Western Union Railroad Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Flint v. StoneSearch
-
Brushaber v. UnionSearch
-
c. 16, 38 Stat. 114, 166, which taxed all incomes received after March 1, 1913, was specifically upheld in Brushaber v. UnionSearch
-
Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1 , 240 U. S. 20 , and in Lynch v. HornbySearch
-
the calendar year 1863, this additional tax being imposed after the taxes for the year had been paid. In Stockdale v. InsuranceSearch
-
taxed incomes for the calendar year 1918, was applied, without question as to its constitutionality, in United States v. RobbinsSearch
-
Stat. 11, 112, applying to all net income for the calendar year, was sustained in Flint v. StoneSearch
-
imposing excess profits taxes on the profits earned during the calendar year, were so applied in La Belle Iron Works v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 256 U. S. 377 , in Greenport Basin & Construction Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
taxing excess profits earned during the calendar year 1918 has never been questioned. Compare Willcuts v. MiltonSearch
-
Blair v. OesterleinSearch
-
Porto Rico Coal Co. v. EdwardsSearch
-
National Paper & Type Co. v. EdwardsSearch
-
c. 463, title 3, 39 Stat. 756, 780, applied to the 12 months ending December 31, 1916. Compare Carbon Steel Co. v. LewellynSearch
-
United States v. AndersonSearch
-
which materially increased the capital stock tax, made the increase retroactive to July 1, 1918. In Hecht v. MalleySearch
-
an earlier act and paid before the passage of the Act of 1919. Except for the peculiar tax involved in Nichols v. CoolidgeSearch
-
had been paid prior to any legislation attempting to authorize Page 276 U. S. 450 the assessment. Wagner v. BaltimoreSearch
-
was a valid authorization either of the improvement or of the assessment. Compare Charlotte Harbor & Northern Ry. Co. v. WellesSearch
-
a bona fide purchaser without notice of any claim that it had been, or might be, assessed for a benefit. Seattle v. KelleherSearch
-
U. S. 351 . Compare Citizens' National Bank v. KentuckySearch
-
thereafter Congress, by retroactive legislation, confirmed the unlawful action in collecting the duties. United States v. HeinszenSearch
-
Co., 206 U. S. 370 . Rafferty v. SmithSearch
-
Forbes Boat Line v. BoardSearch
-
power, even though, standing alone, its constitutionality might have been subject to doubt. Purity Extract Co. v. LynchSearch
-
Ruppert v. CaffeySearch
-
long to insure that the tax will not be evaded by anticipating the passage of the Act. Compare United States v. DoremusSearch
-
See MR. JUSTICE HOLMES in Schlesinger v. WisconsinSearch
-
with great reluctance the exercise of its high prerogative of declaring invalid an act of Congress. In Ogden v. SaundersSearch
-
in favor of the validity of an act of Congress, often adverted to, has been acted upon as recently as United States v. Berwind-WhiteSearch
-
Coal Mining Co., 274 U. S. 564 , and Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial