Hancy ex rel. Hone v. Comm'r

30 Cited authorities

Nichols v. Coolidge
274 U.S. 531 (1927) Cited 285 times
Holding that "the statute here under consideration, in so far as it requires that there shall be included in the gross estate the value of property transferred by a decedent prior to its passage merely because the conveyance was intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment at or after his death, is arbitrary, capricious and amounts to confiscation"
Chase Nat. Bank v. United States
278 U.S. 327 (1929) Cited 272 times
In Chase National Bank v. United States, 278 U.S. 327, where the beneficiaries' interests were admittedly vested, the Court reiterated the principle stated in Saltonstall v. Saltonstall, that the test of constitutionality is the incidence of the tax on the shifting of economic benefit, and not on the passage of a mere technical legal title.
Reinecke v. Trust Co.
278 U.S. 339 (1929) Cited 266 times
In Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 278 U.S. 339, a testator who died in 1922 had, in the period between 1903 and 1919, while not in contemplation of death, executed seven trust indentures.
Untermyer v. Anderson
276 U.S. 440 (1928) Cited 158 times
Holding that the retroactive provision of the novel gift tax of the Revenue Act of 1924 was invalid as applied to gifts antedating the act
Saltonstall v. Saltonstall
276 U.S. 260 (1928) Cited 130 times
Affirming s. c. 256 Mass. 519, 153 N.E. 4
Bullen v. Wisconsin
240 U.S. 625 (1916) Cited 172 times
Holding that stocks, bonds and notes kept in one state by the owner were subject to an inheritance tax in another state wherein the owner was domiciled at the time of his death
United States v. Field
255 U.S. 257 (1921) Cited 122 times
In United States v. Field, 255 U.S. 257, this Court held that property passing under a general power of appointment exercised by a decedent was not such an "interest" of the decedent as the 1916 Act brought within the decedent's gross estate.
United States v. Robbins
269 U.S. 315 (1926) Cited 93 times
In United States v. Robbins, 269 U.S. 315, this court considered the character of the wife's estate during the existence of the community, and said (p. 326): "We can see no sufficient reason to doubt that the settled opinion of the Supreme Court of California, at least with reference to the time before the later statutes, is that the wife had a mere expectancy while living with her husband.
Burlingham v. Crouse
228 U.S. 459 (1913) Cited 122 times
In Burlingham v. Crouse, 228 U.S. 459, 473, we said that it "was the purpose of Congress to pass to the trustee that sum which was available to the bankrupt at the time of bankruptcy as a cash asset, otherwise to leave to the insured the benefit of his life insurance."
Cohen v. Samuels
245 U.S. 50 (1917) Cited 85 times
In Cohen v. Samuels, 245 U.S. 50, 38 S. Ct. 36, 37, 62 L. Ed. 143, the United States Supreme Court held that such a policy passes to the trustee on the ground that to hold otherwise would be "to make an insurance policy a shelter for valuable assets and, it might be, a refuge for fraud."

Hancy ex rel. Hone v. Comm'r

30 Cited authorities

In Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 278 U.S. 339, a testator who died in 1922 had, in the period between 1903 and 1919, while not in contemplation of death, executed seven trust indentures.

Holding that the retroactive provision of the novel gift tax of the Revenue Act of 1924 was invalid as applied to gifts antedating the act

Affirming s. c. 256 Mass. 519, 153 N.E. 4

Holding that stocks, bonds and notes kept in one state by the owner were subject to an inheritance tax in another state wherein the owner was domiciled at the time of his death

In United States v. Field, 255 U.S. 257, this Court held that property passing under a general power of appointment exercised by a decedent was not such an "interest" of the decedent as the 1916 Act brought within the decedent's gross estate.

In Burlingham v. Crouse, 228 U.S. 459, 473, we said that it "was the purpose of Congress to pass to the trustee that sum which was available to the bankrupt at the time of bankruptcy as a cash asset, otherwise to leave to the insured the benefit of his life insurance."

In Cohen v. Samuels, 245 U.S. 50, 38 S. Ct. 36, 37, 62 L. Ed. 143, the United States Supreme Court held that such a policy passes to the trustee on the ground that to hold otherwise would be "to make an insurance policy a shelter for valuable assets and, it might be, a refuge for fraud."