MORSMAN v. BURNET, 283 U.S. 783 (1931)
U.S. Supreme Court
MORSMAN v. BURNET, 283 U.S. 783 (1931)283 U.S. 783
Edgar M. MORSMAN, Jr., Administrator
of the Estate of Edgar M. Morsman, petitioner,
v.
David BURNET, Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
No. 581.
Supreme Court of the United States
March 2, 1931
Mr. Edgar M. Morsman, Jr., of Omaha, Neb., for petitioner.
The Attorney General, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The question in this case is that of the construction of section
302( c) of the Revenue Act of 1924, c. 234, 43 Stat. 253, 304 (26
USCA 1094 note), a provision similar to that of section 402(c) of
the Revenue Act of 1918, c. 18, 40 Stat. 1057, 1097, which has
already been construed by this Court, and, in this view, there
being no question of the constitutional authority of the Congress
to impose prosepctively a tax with respect to transfers or tursts
of the sort here involved, the judgment of the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 44 F.(2d) 902 is
reversed upon the authority of May v. Heiner, 281 U.S. 238, 50 S. Ct.
286, 67 A. L. R. 1244.
U.S. Supreme Court
MORSMAN v. BURNET, 283 U.S. 783 (1931) 283 U.S. 783 Edgar M. MORSMAN, Jr., Administrator of the Estate of Edgar M. Morsman, petitioner,v.
David BURNET, Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
No. 581.
Supreme Court of the United States March 2, 1931 Mr. Edgar M. Morsman, Jr., of Omaha, Neb., for petitioner. The Attorney General, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The question in this case is that of the construction of section 302( c) of the Revenue Act of 1924, c. 234, 43 Stat. 253, 304 (26 USCA 1094 note), a provision similar to that of section 402(c) of the Revenue Act of 1918, c. 18, 40 Stat. 1057, 1097, which has already been construed by this Court, and, in this view, there being no question of the constitutional authority of the Congress to impose prosepctively a tax with respect to transfers or tursts of the sort here involved, the judgment of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 44 F.(2d) 902 is reversed upon the authority of May v. Heiner, 281 U.S. 238, 50 S. Ct. 286, 67 A. L. R. 1244.
