§
Huntley v. Comm'r

7 Cited authorities

  1. Brewster v. Gage

    280 U.S. 327 (1930)   Cited 386 times
    In Brewster v. Gage, 280 U.S. 327, 50 S.Ct. 115, 74 L.Ed. 457, the question here before us was not considered; it is to be noted, too, that Brewster v. Gage was relied upon in this court in reaching its reversed decision in the Gambrill case.

  2. Anderson v. Wilson

    289 U.S. 20 (1933)   Cited 117 times
    In Anderson v. Wilson, 1933, 289 U.S. 20, 53 S.Ct. 417, 77 L.Ed. 1004 it was held that a trust is an entity separate from its beneficiaries, and that, accordingly a loss resulting to the trust could not be deducted by the beneficiary in his personal tax return.

  3. Mason v. Routzahn

    275 U.S. 175 (1927)   Cited 38 times
    In Mason v. Routzahn, 275 U.S. 175, 48 S.Ct. 50, 72 L.Ed. 223, that Court refused to sanction apportionment when its effect was to impose the higher tax rates of a later year upon income that had in fact been earned before that year. I think we should not require the Commissioner to use apportionment when it is demonstrable that it deprives the Government of revenue due it under the plain terms of the statute.

  4. In re Burke's Estate

    215 N.W. 413 (Mich. 1927)   Cited 20 times

    Docket No. 112. Submitted June 23, 1927. Decided October 3, 1927. Rehearing denied December 1, 1927. Error to Wayne; Merriam (De Witt H.), J. Submitted June 23, 1927. (Docket No. 112.) Decided October 3, 1927. Rehearing denied December 1, 1927. Petition by Madeline Brady, a mentally incompetent person, by the Detroit Trust Company, general guardian, for a delayed appeal from an order allowing the will of Sophie Lyons Burke, deceased. From an order denying the petition, she brings error. Reversed

  5. Matter of Stoiber

    103 Misc. 654 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1918)   Cited 1 times
    In Matter of Stoiber (170 N.Y.S. 897) where a clause of the testator's will was construed where testator devised and bequeathed all his real and personal estate to his wife and son with a survivorship clause, it was held to create a joint tenancy.

  6. Matter of Isaacs. No. 1

    103 Misc. 184 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1918)   Cited 1 times
    In Matter of Isaac (103 Misc. 184) the question was discussed as to whether, upon the application to punish an administrator for contempt because of failure to comply with the decree of the court directing distribution of the estate of the deceased, the Surrogate should determine the validity and sufficiency of the reasons alleged for the failure of the administrator to comply with the terms of the existence of the jurisdictional facts and the compliance or noncompliance of the administrator with the provisions of the decree.

  7. Matter of Thompson

    41 Misc. 420 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1903)   Cited 7 times
    In Matter of Thompson (41 Misc. 420; affd., 178 N.Y. 554) it appeared that letters of administration were granted in August, 1902, and that the estate securities came into possession of the administrators in October following.