Reynolds v. Cooper
Reynolds, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. Richard F. Cooper
Opinion
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Court.
In each of these causes a beneficiary received from trustees royalties arising from a lease of oil and gas lands. in Wyoming. Taxes were exacted upon the full amounts so received. Separate ■ suits were brought to recover proper allowances for depletion. The respondents prevailed in both of the courts below. Here the causes were heard together.
*193 The Solicitor General says — “ The question is identical with that raised in Helvering v. Falk, No. 225, October Term, 1933, and the argument made in the Government’s brief in that case is likewise applicable here. . . . There is therefore substantially no difference between the position of the beneficiaries in this case and the Falk case.”
The judgments below are affirmed upon authority of Helvering v. Falk, decided this day, ante, p. 183.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Brandeis, Mr. Justice Stone, and Mr. Justice Cardozo think that these cases are to be distinguished from No. 225, Helvering y.
Falk, just decided, because of the nature of the duties imposed upon the trustees, and of the remainder interest granted to the beneficiaries by the trust instrument presently involved, and accordingly concur in the result.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.