HANDY, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
v.
DELAWARE TRUST CO., EXECUTOR, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Collector of Internal Revenue challenged the constitutionality of a federal tax provision that presumed transfers made within two years of death were made in contemplation of death and thus includable in the taxable estate. The Supreme Court held that the statutory presumption violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because it placed the burden on taxpayers to prove transfers were not made in contemplation of death, rather than requiring the government to prove they were.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Sutherland delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case, like Heiner v. Donnan, ante, p. 312, is here on a certificate from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The question submitted is:
“ Does the second sentence of section 302 (c) of the revenue act of 1926 violate the due-process clause of the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States? ” In this case, as in Heiner v. Donnan, the decedent, within two years prior to his death, had made transfers inter vivos without consideration which were complete and irrevocable. The commissioner1 included the value of the property so transferred in the value of the gross estate, and assessed a death transfer tax accordingly. Following a claim for refund and its rejection, the executor brought this action to recover the amount of the tax attributable to such inclusion. The trial court found that in fact none of the transfers had been made in contemplation of death, and rendered judgment for the executor for the amount claimed, on the ground that § 302 (c) violated the due-process clause of the Fifth Amendment and was therefore unconstitutional.
Our decision in Heiner v. Donnan requires an affirmative answer to the question submitted.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Brandéis and Mr. Justice Stone dissent.
Mr. Justice Cardozo took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Neild v. Dist. of Columbia, 110 F.2d 246 (D.C. Cir. 1940)…ot create a conclusive presumption that all transfers of property made within two years of death of the transferor were made in contemplation of death. Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312, 322-326, 52 S.Ct. 358, 76 L.Ed. 772; Handy v. Delaware Trust Co., 285 U.S. 352, 52 S.Ct. 371, 76 L.Ed. 793 (arbitrary and capricious). Cf. Schlesinger v. Wisconsin, 270 U.S. 230, 46 S.Ct. 260, 70 L.Ed. 557, 43 A.L.R. 1224; (holding state statute containing similar provisions violative of the Fourteenth Amendment). Similarly, t…
-
Ariz. State Legis. v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm'n, 135 S. Ct. 2652 (U.S. 2015)
-
Bullard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 90 F.2d 144 (7th Cir. 1937)…in actuality. * * * This court has held more than once that a statute creating a presumption which operates to deny a fair opportunity to rebut it violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” See, also, Handy v. Delaware Trust Co., 285 U.S. 352, 52 S.Ct. 371, 76 L.Ed. 793. To be sure, some of these decisions were by a divided court, but it is not for us to question the correctness of the rules enunciated. Estate taxes are upheld as succession taxes upon property transferred in contemplati…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence