Supreme Court of the United States, 1936

HELVERING, COMMR. OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. McILVAINE TR.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided January 6, 1936 · Hughes

296 U.S. 488; 56 S. Ct. 332; 80 L. Ed. 345; 1936 U.S. LEXIS 481; 1 C.B. 245; 16 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1309 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. J. Louis Monarch, with whom Solicitor General Reed, Assistant Attorney General Wideman, and Mr. Sewall Key were on the brief, for petitioner., Mr. Clay Judson for respondents.

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

McKean v. Scofield (5th Cir. 1940)
United Presbyterian Foundation v. Berryman (Kan. 1979)
Morris Trusts v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1968)
Boyce v. United States (District Court, W.D. Louisiana 1961)
Neal v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1947)
Union Trust Co. v. Commissioner (3d Cir. 1936)
Robert L. Moody Trust v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1976)
Booth Trust v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1963)
William T. Belcher Trust No. 1 v. Commissioner. (United States Tax Court 1947)
Estate of Neal v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1947)
Pingree v. Commissioner (United States Board of Tax Appeals 1941)
State Street Trust Co. v. Crocker (Mass. 1940)
St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Commissioner (United States Board of Tax Appeals 1939)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

*489 Mr. Chief Justice Hughes

delivered the opinion, of the Court.

The question presented in this case is similar to that involved in United States Trust Co. v. Commissioner, decided this day, ante, p. 481. By amendments under a reserved power, the terms of an original trust created by John P. Wilson, in 1913, were altered with the intention of creating three separate trusts. The Board of Tax Appeals, upon findings supported by evidence, concluded that this purpose was accomplished and hence that there was no deficiency. 29 B. T. A. 304. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Board. 78 F. (2d) 787. We granted certiorari because of the conflict with the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in the case of the United States Trust Company, supra, 75 F. (2d) 973, and, for the reasons stated in our opinion in that case, the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is

Affirmed..

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.