Harris v. Commissioner

339 U.S. 917, 94 L. Ed. 1342, 70 S. Ct. 623, 1950 U.S. LEXIS 2183
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Harris v. Commissioner. Read the opinion of the Court — 340 U.S. 106
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided March 27, 1950·No. No. 596·Published

Opinion

Certiorari granted limited to Questions “2” and “3” presented by the petition for the writ, i. e.:

“2. Were the transfers made by the petitioner to her husband under a property settlement agreement dated [918]*918February 27, 1943, incidental to a Nevada divorce, made for an adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth and thus not subject to gift tax?
Irwin N. Wilpon for petitioner. Solicitor General Perl-man, Assistant Attorney General Caudle, Ellis N. Slack, Lee A. Jackson and I. Henry Kutz for respondent.
“3. Were the transfers made by the petitioner to her husband in 1943, in payment and discharge of a legal obligation imposed by the judgment of the Nevada Court entered March 6, 1943, and thus not subject to gift tax?”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Harris v. Commissioner, 339 U.S. 917, 94 L. Ed. 1342, 70 S. Ct. 623, 1950 U.S. LEXIS 2183 (1950).

339 U.S. 917 (Harris v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.