Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Burnet Vs. Wells

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 29, 1933

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

60 entries 8 linked 52 unlinked
Show
  1. Saltonstall Vs. Saltonstall US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1928
  2. Corliss Vs. Bowers US Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1930
    Relied / Followed
  3. Reinecke Vs. Smith US Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1933
    Relied / Followed
  4. Bromley Vs. Mccaughn US Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1929
  5. Fidelity National Bank Vs. Swope US Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1927
  6. Heiner Vs. Donnan US Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1932
  7. Burnet Vs. Leininger US Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1932
  8. Burnet Vs. Guggenheim US Supreme Court · Feb 06, 1933
    Relied / Followed
  9. U.S. 670 (1933) U.S. Supreme Court Burnet v. Wells
    Search
  10. U.S. 670 (1933) Burnet v. Wells
    Search
  11. when concentrated in a single ownership. Like methods of evasion, or, to speak more accurately, of avoidance ( Bullen v. Wisconsin
    Search
  12. The validity of this provision was assailed by taxpayers. It was upheld by this Court in Corliss v. Bowers
    Search
  13. was upheld where the power of revocation had been reserved to the grantor in conjunction with some one else. Reinecke v. Smith
    Search
  14. ante, p. 289 U. S. 172 . Cf. Burnet v. Guggenheim
    Search
  15. The validity of this provision as to trusts both past and future is no longer open to debate. Porter v. Commissioner
    Search
  16. U. S. 436 . Cf. Reinecke v. Northern
    Search
  17. Chase National Bank v. United
    Search
  18. At times, escape has been blocked by the resources of the judicial process without the aid of legislation. Thus, Lucas v. Earl
    Search
  19. by a husband was taxable to him though he had bound himself by a valid contract to assign it to his wife. Burnet v. Leininger
    Search
  20. there had been an assignment by a partner of his interest in the future profits of a partnership. Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner
    Search
  21. U. S. 716 , and United States v. Boston
    Search
  22. same in substance as if the money had been paid to the debtor and then transmitted to the creditor. Cf. United States v. Mahoning
    Search
  23. supra, p. 281 U. S. 378 . Cf. Burnet v. Guggenheim
    Search
  24. necessities of an efficient system of taxation, will have heed and recognition within reasonable limits. Milliken v. United
    Search
  25. by the taxpayer of all the privileges and benefits enjoyed by the most favored owner at a given time or place. Corliss v. Bowers
    Search
  26. tax not only ownership, but any right or privilege that is a constituent of ownership. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wallace
    Search
  27. was none nor anything approaching it, and laid a burden unrelated to privilege or benefit. Purity Extract & Tonic Co. v. Lynch
    Search
  28. Hebe Co. v. Shaw
    Search
  29. Milliken v. United
    Search
  30. N.Y. Life Insurance Co. v. Statham
    Search
  31. a party to a contract, though the benefits of the insurance are to accrue to someone else. Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hurni
    Search
  32. in the preservation of the contracts that he might maintain a suit in equity to declare them still in being. Cohen v. N.Y
    Search
  33. Meyer v. Knickerbocker
    Search
  34. Croker v. N.Y
    Search
  35. Johnson Service Co. v. Monin
    Search
  36. there are imperfections here and there. The exceptional, if it arises, may have its special rule. Dahnke-Walker Co. v. Bondurant
    Search
  37. from obligations that are recognized as binding by normal men and women, will be facts to be considered. Cf. Rinecke v. Smith
    Search
  38. supra, distinguishing Hoeper v. Tax
    Search
  39. it does not cast the burden backward beyond the income Page 289 U. S. 683 of tee current year. Reinecke v. Smith
    Search
  40. Brushaber v. Union
    Search
  41. Cooper v. United
    Search
  42. trustee. The result was a present, executed, outright gift, which could then have been taxed to the settlor. Burnet v. Guggenheim
    Search
  43. to discuss the matter at greater length. We think that opinion should be sustained. It finds ample support in Hoeper v. Tax
    Search
  44. U.S. Supreme Court Burnet v. Wells
    Search
  45. Bullen v. Wisconsin
    Search
  46. Cf. Burnet v. Guggenheim
    Search
  47. Porter v. Commissioner
    Search
  48. Cf. Reinecke v. Northern
    Search
  49. Thus, Lucas v. Earl
    Search
  50. and United States v. Boston
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial