Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Helvering Vs. Stuart

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 16, 1942

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

77 entries 12 linked 65 unlinked
Show
  1. Lyeth Vs. Hoey US Supreme Court · Dec 05, 1938
  2. Freuler Vs. Helvering US Supreme Court · Jan 08, 1934
  3. Palmer Vs. Bender US Supreme Court · Jan 09, 1933
    Relied / Followed
  4. Heiner Vs. Mellon US Supreme Court · May 16, 1938
    Relied / Followed
  5. Helvering Vs. Fuller US Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1940
    Relied / Followed
  6. Helvering Vs. Leonard US Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1940
  7. United States Vs. Pelzer US Supreme Court · Mar 03, 1941
    Relied / Followed
  8. Harrison Vs. Schaffner US Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1941
  9. Helvering Vs. Eubank US Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1940
  10. Douglas Vs. Willcuts US Supreme Court · Nov 11, 1935
    Relied / Followed
  11. Burnet Vs. Harmel US Supreme Court · Nov 07, 1932
  12. United States Vs. Hodson US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1896
  13. U.S. 154 (1942) U.S. Supreme Court Helvering v. Stuart
    Search
  14. U.S. 154 (1942) Helvering v. Stuart
    Search
  15. pro tanto of his parental obligation causes the entire net income to be taxable as income of the donor. Douglas v. Willcuts
    Search
  16. of that section was raised by the Commissioner as appellee before the Circuit Court of Appeals. Helvering v. Gowran
    Search
  17. to raise the question, as he did, in his petition for certiorari, and rely on Section 22 in this Court. Helvering v. Gowran
    Search
  18. Hormel v. Helvering
    Search
  19. trustees were without substantial adverse interests. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this determination, Stuart v. Commissioner
    Search
  20. in the gross incomes of the donors by virtue of the sections of the Act relied upon by the Commissioner. Altmaier v. Commissioner
    Search
  21. Fulham v. Commissioner
    Search
  22. Whiteley v. Commissioner
    Search
  23. Commissioner v. Buck
    Search
  24. of such documents. The intention of Congress controls what law, federal or state, is to be applied. Burnet v. Harmel
    Search
  25. so requires. United States v. Pelzer
    Search
  26. of the state law. The power to transfer or distribute assets of a trust is essentially a matter of local law. Blair v. Commissioner
    Search
  27. Morgan v. Commissioner
    Search
  28. with the taxability at death of property passing under a general power of appointment). In this case, as in Lyeth v. Hoey
    Search
  29. should be taxed, not what interests or rights had been created, and therefore applied the federal rule. Cf. Burnet v. Harmel
    Search
  30. Without a definite conviction of error in the conclusion, this Court will not reverse that judgment. MacGregor v. State
    Search
  31. Mutual Life Assurance Company, 315 U. S. 280 . Cf. Reitz v. Mealey
    Search
  32. Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman
    Search
  33. rule, but does not urge that a federal rule of interpretation applies. The suggestion is made that Helvering v. Fitch
    Search
  34. U. S. 80 , and Pearce v. Commissioner
    Search
  35. obligation to support, or whether the wife could raise doubts and uncertainties as to the proper conclusion. Pearce v. Commissioner
    Search
  36. donor, to the detriment of the present beneficiaries. To support this construction, the Court of Appeals cites Frank v. Frank
    Search
  37. life estate alone, and its use unauthorized Page 317 U. S. 165 for the fee. In Rock Island Bank & Tr. Co. v. Rhoads
    Search
  38. are cited cases establishing their general power to require action in accordance with the intent of the donor. Maguire v. City
    Search
  39. Jones v. Jones
    Search
  40. Welch v. Caldwell
    Search
  41. cites no Illinois cases which bring us to a conviction of error on the part of the Court of Appeals. People v. Kaiser
    Search
  42. Gilman v. Bell
    Search
  43. Botzum v. Havana
    Search
  44. have an interest adverse to the grantor. Without that power, their interest certainly is not adverse. Cf. Reinecke v. Smith
    Search
  45. Assuming that such a change would result in a distribution to the grantor under Section 167 and Douglas v. Willcuts
    Search
  46. U. S. 159 , on the ground that the trust incomes are chargeable to the donors under the rule of Helvering v. Clifford
    Search
  47. It is to be interpreted in the light of its purpose for the protection of the federal revenue. United States v. Hodson
    Search
  48. to 168, Supplement E, 48 Stat. 727. Cf. Helvering v. Fuller
    Search
  49. That gain need not be collected by the taxpayer. He may give away the right to receive it, as was done in Helvering v. Horst
    Search
  50. U. S. 122 , 311 U. S. 125 , and Harrison v. Schaffner
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial