Citation network
Commissioner Vs. Harmon
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 20, 1944
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
- Distinguished
-
U.S. 44 (1944) U.S. Supreme Court Commissioner v. HarmonSearch
-
U.S. 44 (1944) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. HarmonSearch
-
not entitled thereafter to divide the community income equally between them for purposes of federal income tax. Poe v. SeabornSearch
-
Both courts relied on Poe v. SeabornSearch
-
the wife became vested with one half of all community income as therein defined. And, since this court held in Poe v. SeabornSearch
-
which effects a transfer of rights of the husband and wife, the case is Page 323 U. S. 46 governed by Lucas v. EarlSearch
-
We hold that the petitioner's view is the right one. Under Lucas v. EarlSearch
-
out of contract. It does not significantly differ in origin or nature from such a status as was in question in Lucas v. EarlSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
where, by contract, future income of the spouses was to vest in them as joint tenants. In Poe v. SeabornSearch
-
incidence of the tax, and refused to do so. In these circumstances, the court declined to apply the doctrine of Lucas v. EarlSearch
-
alteration in their prospective rights to the fruits of each other's labors or investments, as was done in Lucas v. EarlSearch
-
is at least equal to that of man and wife in any community property State with whose law we were concerned in Poe v. SeabornSearch
-
of Oklahoma is not a system, dictated by State policy, as an incident of matrimony. Our decisions in United States v. RobbinsSearch
-
U. S. 315 , and in United States v. MalcolmSearch
-
in Poe v. SeabornSearch
-
because of amendments of the California statutes made since United States v. RobbinsSearch
-
Burnet v. LeiningerSearch
-
are best illustrated by Poe v. SeabornSearch
-
the full amount. That result had indeed been indicated by Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking for the Court in United States v. RobbinsSearch
-
U. S. 315 , 269 U. S. 327 . And it has been strongly urged that our recent decisions -- such as Helvering v. CliffordSearch
-
U. S. 331 , and Harrison v. SchaffnerSearch
-
But, in Poe v. SeabornSearch
-
It is said that the elective feature of the Oklahoma statute causes it to run afoul of Lucas v. EarlSearch
-
to render the income immune from taxation as that of the assignor. But the Court was not troubled with Lucas v. EarlSearch
-
It disposed of that argument by saying that, in Lucas v. EarlSearch
-
Oklahoma that such a transfer was effected by the written election filed by the husband and wife in this case. Harmon v. OklahomaSearch
-
interests in this case is any less genuine or effective than it was in Poe v. SeabornSearch
-
If, as Poe v. SeabornSearch
-
Page 323 U. S. 53 for the disposition of income under the rule of Lucas v. EarlSearch
-
income tax purposes. In the first place, even the distinction which the Court seeks to take between this case and Poe v. SeabornSearch
-
and in Washington after marriage. How are we justified in saying that Lucas v. EarlSearch
-
Cf. Helvering v. HallockSearch
-
separate property of one spouse may be converted by contract or deed into community property, or vice versa. Volz v. ZangSearch
-
Van Moss v. SailorsSearch
-
Kenney v. KenneySearch
-
Cal. 134, 136, 30 P.2d 398. But see Kellett v. KellettSearch
-
McDonald v. LambertSearch
-
N.M. 27, 85 P.2d 78. And it has been supposed since Poe v. SeabornSearch
-
both Page 323 U. S. 55 of the courts ( Black v. CommissionerSearch
-
F.2d 355) and of the Tax Court. Shoenhair v. CommissionerSearch
-
Harmon v. CommissionerSearch
-
T.C. 40, 46, 47. And that has been the Treasury position. G.C.M.19248, Int.Rev. Bull., Cum.Bull.1937-2, p. 59. If Poe v. SeabornSearch
-
it is the former, then we are overriding settled administrative construction on which great reliance was placed in Poe v. SeabornSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial