GUY T. HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.
v.
DAVIS

U.S. | 1937-06-01
No. 910
301 U.S. 672 Supreme Court of the United States (1937)

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

The Supreme Court clarified the scope of review in a constitutional challenge to the Social Security Act's employer and employee payroll taxes, holding that the Court would address whether Congress possessed constitutional authority to impose the employer tax under Section 804 and whether the employee tax under Section 801 was properly before the Court and constitutional. The amendments to the opinion refined the procedural posture and the specific legal questions presented for decision.


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

Opinion of the Court

On consideration of the opinion filed in this cause on May 24, 1937, it is ordered that the following amendments be made therein:

1. The last paragraph on page 4, continuing for two lines on page 5, is amended to read as follows: “A petition for certiorari followed. It was filed by the intervening defendants, the Commissioner and the Collector, and brought two questions, and two only, to our notice. We were asked to determine: (1) “Whether the tax imposed upon employers by Section 804 of the Social Security Act is within the power of Congress under the Constitution,” and (2) “whether the validity of the tax imposed upon employees by Section 801 of the Social Security Act is properly in issue in this case, and if it is, whether that tax is within the power of Congress under the Constitution.” The defendant corporation gave notice to the Clerk that it joined in the petition but it has taken no part in any subsequent proceedings. A writ of certiorari issued.”

2. The words “decree for an injunction” on the ninth line of page 5 are struck out, and the words “equitable remedy” are substituted.

3. In the title of the cause the word “Petitioners” where it now appears is struck out, and inserted following the name of the Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Boston.

Reported as amended, ante, p. 619.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw