Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    Burnet v. Henry, 283 U.S. 229 (1931)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision in a case involving whether a subscription to a fund by an agent on behalf of the respondent constituted taxable income. The facts were the same as a prior case, Burnet v. Houston, where the Court had determined such a subscription was taxable income. Here, the subscription was made by the respondent's brother as her agent, not directly by the respondent, but the Court found this did not change the outcome based on the prior precedent. The Court reversed the lower court's decision based on its ruling in the earlier, analogous Burnet v. Houston case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Burnet v. Henry, 283 U.S. 229 (1931)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views1 page
    The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision in a case involving whether a subscription to a fund by an agent on behalf of the respondent constituted taxable income. The facts were the same as a prior case, Burnet v. Houston, where the Court had determined such a subscription was taxable income. Here, the subscription was made by the respondent's brother as her agent, not directly by the respondent, but the Court found this did not change the outcome based on the prior precedent. The Court reversed the lower court's decision based on its ruling in the earlier, analogous Burnet v. Houston case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1931-04-13 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 283 U.S. 229 Docket: 202

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision in a case involving whether a subscription to a fund by an agent on behalf of the respondent constituted taxable income. The facts were the same as a prior case, Burnet v. Houston, where the Court had determined such a subscription was taxable income. Here, the subscription was made by the respondent's brother as her agent, not directly by the respondent, but the Court found this did not change the outcome based on the prior precedent. The Court reversed the lower court's decision based on its ruling in the earlier, analogous Burnet v. Houston case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    13 views1 page

    Burnet v. Henry, 283 U.S. 229 (1931)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision in a case involving whether a subscription to a fund by an agent on behalf of the respondent constituted taxable income. The facts were the same as a prior case, Burnet v. Houston, where the Court had determined such a subscription was taxable income. Here, the subscription was made by the respondent's brother as her agent, not directly by the respondent, but the Court found this did not change the outcome based on the prior precedent. The Court reversed the lower court's decision based on its ruling in the earlier, analogous Burnet v. Houston case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    283 U.S.

    229
    51 S.Ct. 416
    75 L.Ed. 995

    David BURNET, Commissioner of Internal Revenue,


    Petitioner,
    v.
    Sallie H. HENRY.
    No. 202.

    Supreme Court of the United States


    Argued March 12, 1931.
    April 13, 1931

    The Attorney General and Mr. G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for
    petitioner.
    Mr. Wm. Clarke Mason, of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.
    Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

    The question in this case is the same as that which has been determined against
    the respondent in No. 199, Burnet v. Houston, 283 U. S. 223, 51 S. Ct. 413, 75
    L. Ed. 991. The subscription to the fund described in our opinion in that case
    was not made by respondent direct, but by her brother, Samuel F. Houston,
    acting as her agent. Otherwise the facts are the same; and, upon the authority of
    the Houston Case, the judgment of the court below ((C. C. A.) 39 F.(2d) 358) is
    reversed.

    You might also like