United States v. Nichols

First Circuit

United States v. Nichols

92 F.2d 704, 20 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 303, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 4683

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedOctober 22, 1937

DocketNo. 3282

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 92 F.2d 704 (United States v. Nichols) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Nichols, 92 F.2d 704, 20 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 303, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 4683 (1st Cir. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The only point relied upon and presented for our consideration at the argument of this case was whether section 803(a) of the Revenue Act of 1932 (26 U.S.C.A. § 411(c) amending section 302(c) of the Revenue Act of 1926 was constitutional if applied retroactively' to the irrevocable trust here in question, executed in the year 1930, the creator of the trust having died subsequent to the effective date of the Revenue Act of 1932.

We regard the question as concluded by our decision of June 1, 1937, in Welch v. Hassett, 90 F.(2d) 833. We there said (page 840):

“The defendant’s contention that these statutes can have a retroactive effect where there has been an irrevocable transfer of the decedent’s interest during his lifetime, even though he reserves the income of the property so conveyed, cannot prevail in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court above cited, together with Helvering v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 296 U.S. 39, 56 S.Ct. 74, 80 L.Ed. 29, 100 A.L.R. 1239; Becker v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 296 U.S. 48, 56 S.Ct. 78, 80 L.Ed. 35, and Helvering v. City Bank Farmers’ Trust Co., supra [296 U.S. 85, 56 S.Ct. 70, 80 L.Ed. 62], If doubt exists as to the construction of these statutes, it should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer. Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 38 S.Ct. 53, 62 L.Ed. 211.”

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The only point relied upon and presented for our consideration at the argument of this case was whether section 803(a) of the Revenue Act of 1932 (26 U.S.C.A. § 411(c) amending section 302(c) of the Revenue Act of 1926 was constitutional if applied retroactively' to the irrevocable trust here in question, executed in the year 1930, the creator of the trust having died subsequent to the effective date of the Revenue Act of 1932.

We regard the question as concluded by our decision of June 1, 1937, in Welch v. Hassett, 90 F.(2d) 833. We there said (page 840):

“The defendant’s contention that these statutes can have a retroactive effect where there has been an irrevocable transfer of the decedent’s interest during his lifetime, even though he reserves the income of the property so conveyed, cannot prevail in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court above cited, together with Helvering v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 296 U.S. 39, 56 S.Ct. 74, 80 L.Ed. 29, 100 A.L.R. 1239; Becker v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 296 U.S. 48, 56 S.Ct. 78, 80 L.Ed. 35, and Helvering v. City Bank Farmers’ Trust Co., supra [296 U.S. 85, 56 S.Ct. 70, 80 L.Ed. 62], If doubt exists as to the construction of these statutes, it should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer. Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 38 S.Ct. 53, 62 L.Ed. 211.”

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 F.2d 704, 20 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 303, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 4683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-nichols-ca1-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack