Citation network
Helvering Vs. Gerhardt
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 23, 1938
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
-
U.S. 405 (1938) U.S. Supreme Court Helvering v. GerhardtSearch
-
U.S. 405 (1938) Helvering v. GerhardtSearch
-
itself with respect to its receipt of income or its other activities. P. 304 U. S. 424 . 4. Brush v. CommissionerSearch
-
for the Second Circuit, 92 F.2d 999, Page 304 U. S. 411 affirmed without opinion on the authority of Brush v. CommissionerSearch
-
Commissioner v. TenSearch
-
Eyck, 76 F.2d 515, and New York ex rel. Rogers v. GravesSearch
-
to tax the other, or its instrumentalities. The doctrine that there is an implied limitation stems from McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
invalid any form of state taxation adversely affecting the use or enjoyment of federal instrumentalities. Miller v. MilwaukeeSearch
-
Pacific Co., Ltd. v. JohnsonSearch
-
from the taxation of obligations of the United States as an interference with the borrowing power, Weston v. CharlestonSearch
-
levied upon the office of a captain of a revenue cutter, Dobbins v. ErieSearch
-
subject to an implied restriction when applied to state instrumentalities was first decided in Collector v. DaySearch
-
Wall. 78 U. S. 125 -126. We need not stop to inquire how far, as indicated in McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
It is enough for present purposes that the state immunity from the national taxing power, when recognized in Collector v. DaySearch
-
raised by implication, should be narrowly limited. One, as was pointed out by Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
supra, page 435-436, and Weston v. CharlestonSearch
-
is thrown upon the national government, with benefit only to a privileged class of taxpayers. See Metcalf & Eddy v. MitchellSearch
-
from the beginning, would become a ready means for striking down the taxing power of the nation. See South Carolina v. UnitedSearch
-
taxing power, this Court has refused to enlarge the immunity substantially beyond those limits marked out in Collector v. DaySearch
-
supra. It has been sustained where, as in Collector v. DaySearch
-
the attempt was to tax income received from the investments of a municipal subdivision of a state, United States v. RailroadSearch
-
by a private investor from state bonds, and thus threaten impairment of the borrowing power of the state, Pollock v. Farmers'Search
-
Weston v. CharlestonSearch
-
sale to a municipal corporation of equipment for its Page 304 U. S. 418 police force, Indian Motocycle Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
S. 570 . But the Court has refused to extend the immunity to a state conducted liquor business, South Carolina v. UnitedSearch
-
Ohio v. HelveringSearch
-
railway business taken over and operated by state officers as a means of effecting a local public policy. Helvering v. PowersSearch
-
tax laid on the privilege of exercising corporate franchises granted by a state to public service companies. Flint v. StoneSearch
-
the state treasury. The state itself was taxed for the privilege of carrying on the liquor business in South Carolina v. UnitedSearch
-
States, supra, and in Ohio v. HelveringSearch
-
officer engaged in the management of a state-owned corporation operating a street railroad was sustained in Helvering v. PowersSearch
-
protected from a tax which well may be substantially or entirely absorbed by private persons. Metcalf & Eddy v. MitchellSearch
-
taxation of income rends to raise (to some extent which economists are not able to measure, see Indian Motocycle Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
all those who deal with it were tax exempt was not thought to be an adequate basis for tax immunity in Metcalf & Eddy v. MitchellSearch
-
supra, in Group No. 1 Oil Corp. v. BassSearch
-
in Burnet v. JerginsSearch
-
or in Helvering v. MountainSearch
-
it must clearly appear that the burden upon the state function is actual and substantial, not conjectural. Willcuts v. BunnSearch
-
insolvent corporation, where the state was reimbursed from the corporate assets, was subject to income tax. McLoughlin v. CommissionerSearch
-
of the character ordinarily carried on by private citizens. The Revenue Act of 1917, considered in Metcalf & Eddy v. MitchellSearch
-
that neither the constitutional immunity nor the statutory exemption extended to independent contractors. In Brush v. CommissionerSearch
-
ineffectual to exempt the salaries here involved. The reasoning upon which the decision in Indian Motocycle Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
state function differed from that of the present tax we do not now inquire. Compare Wheeler Lumber Bridge & Supply Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 281 U. S. 572 . Page 304 U. S. 424 As was pointed out in Metcalf & Eddy v. MitchellSearch
-
government itself as to be considered beyond the reach of the federal taxing power. If the tax considered in Collector v. DaySearch
-
Together with No. 780, Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. WilsonSearch
-
and No. 781, Same v. MulcahySearch
-
to protect it from state taxation. Congress may curtail an immunity which might otherwise be implied. Van Allen v. AssessorsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial