LOUISE A. WHITCOMB
v.
HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

U.S. | 1934-01-08
No. 145
Mr. Justice Brandeis, Mr. Justice Stone, and Mr. Justice Cardozo, dissent.
291 U.S. 53 Supreme Court of the United States (1934) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 78 L. Ed. 645 · 54 S. Ct. 315 · 1934 U.S. LEXIS 489 · SCDB 1933-068
Cited by 103 cases

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.

Synopsis

Louise Whitcomb, a beneficiary of a trust created by A. C. Whitcomb's will with a vested remainder interest subject to potential divestment to Harvard College, challenged the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's tax assessment against her. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment, applying the same reasoning from the companion case No. 129 and finding Whitcomb's added remainder interest feature did not require separate analysis.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Roberts

Mr. Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case was brought here by writ of certiorari,1 The petitioner is a beneficiary of the trust created by the will of A. C. Whitcomb, and her status2 differs from that of the-petitioner in No. 129 {ante, p. 35) only in the respect that she has a vested remainder, subject, in certain events, to be divested in favor of Harvard College. The Court of Appeals did not make’that circumstance the basis-of any distinction between her case and that of Freuler (No. 129). The petitioner therefore makes the same contentions which are there considered; but claims also, if her interest in the trust corpus by way of remainder is given effect, it does not follow that an affirmance in No. 129 requires the like result ;in her case. As we reverse the judgment in No; 129 and the reasons given in our opinion apply in this case, we have no occasion' to pass upon the added feature presented by,the remainder interest of the petitioner^

For the reasons set’forth in the opinion in No. 129 the judgment must be reversed.

Reversed.

Mr. Justice Brandeis, Mr. Justice Stone, and Mr. Justice Cardozo, dissent.

See 22 B.T.A. 118; 65 F. (2d) 803, 809.

Companion cases in the Board of Tax Appeals and the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, which involve the tax liability of other beneficiaries of the same trust, under like circumstances, were brought up by certiorari. They aré Nos. 146 to 150, inclusive. By stipulation filed in this court, the parties agree that if the judgment in No. 145 is reversed a like judgment shall be entered in the other cases; and if that judgment is affirmed , a like judgment shall be entered in the-others.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (102 total)

  • Agwilines, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 87 F.2d 146 (5th Cir. 1936)
    …not, by substituting our own conclusions for the ones they drew, reverse theirs unless those conclusions are clearly improper, that is, the evidence affords no reasonable basis for them. Federal Trade Commission v. Algoma Lumber Co., 291 U.S. 67-73, 54 S.Ct. 315, 78 L.Ed. 655; Federal Trade Commission v. Pacific States Paper Trade Ass’n, 273 U.S. 52-63, 47 S.Ct. 255, 71 L.Ed. 534; Florida v. United States, 292 U.S. 1-12, 54 S.Ct. 603, 78 L.Ed. 1077; Helvering v. Rankin, 295 U.S. 123-131, 55 S. Ct. 732, 79 L…
  • Willapoint Oysters, Inc. v. Ewing, 174 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1949)
    …48, 81 L.Ed. 965; Del Vecchio v. Bowers, 1935, 296 U.S. 280, 287, 56 S.Ct. 190, 80 L.Ed. 229; State of Florida v. United States, 1934, 292 U.S. 1, 12, 54 S.Ct. 603, 78 L.Ed. 1077; Federal Trade Commission v. Algoma Lumber Co., 1934, 291 U.S. 67, 73, 54 S.Ct. 315, 78 L.Ed. 655. Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp., 4 Cir., 1940, 109 F. 2d 128, 130; N. L. R. B. v. Empire Furniture Corp., 6 Cir., 1939, 107 F. 2d 92, 94; Appalachian Electric Power Co. v. N. L. R. B., supra, footnote 24. 9 C…
  • Stork Rest., Inc. v. Sahati, 166 F.2d 348 (9th Cir. 1948)
    …ermination is made, there is no more reason for a requirement of ‘fraud’ in the trade name cases than in the trade-mark cases.” (Emphasis supplied.) As was said by the Supreme Court in Federal Trade Commission v. Algoma Lumber Co., 291 U.S. 67, 81, 54 S.Ct. 315, 321, 78 L.Ed. 655: “Indeed there is a kind of fraud, as coruts of equity have long perceived, in clinging to a benefit which is the product of misrepresentation, however innocently made. [Cases cited] That is the respondents’ plight today, no matte…

Previewing 3 of 102 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw