Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Pearce Vs. Commissioner

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 09, 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

74 entries 8 linked 66 unlinked
Show
  1. Helvering Vs. Fitch US Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1940
    Relied / Followed
  2. Blair Vs. Commissioner US Supreme Court · Feb 01, 1937
  3. Helvering Vs. Leonard US Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1940
    Relied / Followed
  4. Helvering Vs. Horst US Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1940
  5. Douglas Vs. Willcuts US Supreme Court · Nov 11, 1935
  6. Phillips Vs. Phillips Kolkata · Apr 26, 1910
  7. irwIn Vs. Gavit US Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1925
  8. Harrison Vs. Schaffner US Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1941
  9. U.S. 543 (1942) U.S. Supreme Court Pearce v. Commissioner
    Search
  10. U.S. 543 (1942) Pearce v. Commissioner
    Search
  11. the petition for certiorari, 314 U.S. 593, because of the manner in which that court applied the rule of Helvering v. Fitch
    Search
  12. U. S. 149 , and Helvering v. Leonard
    Search
  13. the burden to show error rested on petitioner. Welch v. Helvering
    Search
  14. to a continuing obligation of her former husband to provide for her support, so as to make the rule of Douglas v. Willcuts
    Search
  15. law, but also where his undertaking or local law makes that question doubtful or uncertain. Those cases, like Douglas v. Willcuts
    Search
  16. clear and convincing proof that the payments were not made pursuant to any such continuing obligation. Helvering v. Fuller
    Search
  17. to proceed against one, rather than the other, where, for example, local law was uncertain. But the rule of Douglas v. Willcuts
    Search
  18. Martin v. Martin
    Search
  19. S.W.2d 789, 791, 792. It has been broadly stated in Phillips v. Phillips
    Search
  20. Pape v. Pape
    Search
  21. Boyd v. Boyd
    Search
  22. Clark v. Clark
    Search
  23. Berg v. Berg
    Search
  24. Keton v. Clark
    Search
  25. of the estate as apparently to impose on the husband a personal obligation to make stated payments to his wife. Wiley v. Wiley
    Search
  26. parties to community property may not preclude a subsequent suit by the wife to establish her rights in it. See Gray v. Thomas
    Search
  27. And the decree may Page 315 U. S. 549 be corrected to conform to the intention of the parties. Keller v. Keller
    Search
  28. wife an interest in property not covered by the earlier decree, has been denied in absence of fraud or mistake. Cannon v. Cannon
    Search
  29. but approval of the result or lack of jurisdiction. Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. Art. 1728. And see Republic Ins. Co. v. Highland
    Search
  30. thereto, to impose on petitioner's husband a personal obligation as was apparently done by the divorce decree in Wiley v. Wiley
    Search
  31. supra. See 6 Tex.L.Rev. 344, discussing Helm v. Helm
    Search
  32. U.S. at 309 U. S. 156 . And, in speaking of the alimony trust involved in Douglas v. Willcuts
    Search
  33. under the rule of Helvering v. Clifford
    Search
  34. then the power of the court to add to the husband's personal obligations may be especially significant. See Helvering v. Leonard
    Search
  35. a particular case on one side of the line, rather than the other. But, as stated by Mr. Justice Holmes in Irwin v. Gavit
    Search
  36. Harrison v. Schaffner
    Search
  37. is not aided by those cases which enforce agreements of the husband to make periodic payments to the wife. See Johnson v. Johnson
    Search
  38. Paul, Five Years with Douglas v. Willcuts
    Search
  39. Harv.L.Rev. 1, 17, note 44. We noted in Helvering v. Fuller
    Search
  40. We do not think that it would be proper to extend the rule of Douglas v. Willcuts
    Search
  41. he is taxable on a part of the payments received by the wife does not necessarily make him taxable on all. Helvering v. Page
    Search
  42. U. S. 554 Fuller, supra, p. 310 U. S. 73 . Hence, the statement in Helvering v. Fitch
    Search
  43. a week. If the rule of Douglas v. Willcuts
    Search
  44. made, the husband would have sustained his burden in case the Commissioner had proceeded against him. Cf. Mitchell v. Commissioner
    Search
  45. B.T.A. 1336. Clearly then, the wife may not escape. Such cases as Helvering v. Horst
    Search
  46. U. S. 112 , Helvering v. Eubank
    Search
  47. U. S. 122 , and Harrison v. Schaffner
    Search
  48. of the federal income tax law. Harrison v. Schaffner
    Search
  49. annuity on the income received, however his interest in the fund which produces the income may be described. Cf. Irwin v. Gavit
    Search
  50. U. S. 112 , 311 U. S. 119 , and see Harrison v. Schaffner
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial