New York Trust Co v. Eisner
| Decision Date | 16 May 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 286,286 |
| Citation | 16 A. L. R. 660,256 U.S. 345,65 L.Ed. 963,41 S.Ct. 506 |
| Parties | NEW YORK TRUST CO. et al. v. EISNER |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. George Sutherland, of Washington, D. C., and H. T. Newcomb, of New York City, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Solicitor General Frierson, for defendant in error.
Mr. John B. Gleason, of New York City, for the Comptroller of the State of New York, by special leave.
Mr. J. Weston Allen, of Boston, Mass., for the State of Massachusetts and others, by special leave.
This is a suit brought by the executors of one Purdy to recover an estate tax levied under the Act of Congress of September 8, 1916, c. 463, Title II, § 201, 39 Stat. 756, 777 (Comp. St. § 6336 1/2 b), and paid under duress on December 14, 1917. According to the complaint Purdy died leaving a will and codicil directing that all succession, inheritance and transfer taxes should be paid out of the residuary estate, which was bequeathed to the descendants of his brother. The value of the residuary estate was $427,414.96, subject to some administration expenses. The executors had been required to pay and had paid inheritance and succession taxes to New York ($32,988.97) and other States ($4,780.91) amounting in all to $37,769.88. The gross estate as defined in section 202 of the Act of Congress (Comp. St. § 6336 1/2 c) was $769,799.39; funeral expenses and expenses of administration, except the above taxes, $61,322.08; leaving a net value for the payment of legacies, except as reduced by the taxes of the United States, of $670,707.43. The plaintiffs were compelled to pay $23,910.77 to the United States, no deduction of any part of the above mentioned $37,769.88 being allowed. They allege that the Act of Congress is unconstitutional, and also that it was misconstrued in not allowing a deduction of state inheritance and succession taxes as charges within the meaning of section 203 (section 6336 1/2 d). On demurrer the District Court dismissed the suit.
By section 201 of the Act, 'a tax * * * equal to the following percentages of the value of the net estate, to be determined as provided in section two hundred and three, is hereby imposed upon the transfer of the net estate of every decedent dying after the passage of this Act.' with percentages rising from one per centum of the amount of the net estate not in excess of $50,000 to ten per centum of the amount in excess of $5,000,000. Section 202 gives the mode of determining the value of the gross estate. Then, by section 203 it is enacted:
'That for the purpose of the tax the value of the net estate shall be determined—(a) In the case of a resident, by deducting from the value of the gross estate—(1) Such amounts for funeral expenses, administration expenses, claims against the estate, unpaid mortgages, losses incurred during the settlement of the estate arising from fires, storms, shipwreck, or other casualty, and from theft, when such losses are not compensated for by insurance or otherwise, support during the settlement of the estate of those dependent upon the decedent, and such other charges against the estate, as are allowed by the laws of the jurisdiction, whether within or without the United States, under which the estate is being administered; and (2) an exemption of $50,000.'
The tax is to be due in one year after the decedent's death. Section 204 (section 6336 1/2 e). Within thirty days after qualifying the executor is to give written notice to the collector and later to make return of the gross estate, deductions allowed, net estate and the tax payable thereon. Section 205 (section 6336 1/2 f). The executor is to pay the tax. Section 207 (section 6336 1/2 h). The tax is a lien for ten years on the gross estate except such part as is paid out for allowed charges, section 209 (section 6336 1/2j), and if not paid within sixty days after it is due is to be collected by a suit to subject the decedent's property to be sold, section 208 (section 6336 1/2 i). In case of collection from some person other than the executor, the same section provides for contribution from or marshalling of persons subject to equal or prior liability 'it being the purpose and intent of this title that so far as is practicable and unless otherwise directed by the will of the decedent the tax shall be paid out of the estate before its distribution.' These provisions are assailed by the plaintiffs in error as an unconstitutional interference with the rights of the States to regulate descent and distribution, as unequal and as a direct tax not apportioned as the Constitution requires.
The statement of the constitutional objections urged imports on its face a distinction that, if correct, evidently hitherto has escaped this Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County
...that definition was superfluous. * * * 'Upon this point a page of history is worth a volume of logic.' New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963.' Frankfurter, J., United States v. Lovett, 1945, 328 U.S. 303, 321, 323, 66 S.Ct. 1073, 1081, 90 L.Ed. 'It......
-
People v. Skinner
... ... 315.) Justice Cardozo, in an opinion for the New York Court of Appeal, eloquently expressed the underlying philosophy: "In the light of all these ... As Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." (New York Trust Co. v. Eisner (1921) 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963.) ... In ... ...
-
Etc Mktg., Ltd. v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist.
...examining the meaning and the purpose of Section 284.1, "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." N.Y. Tr. Co. v. Eisner , 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921). That history is told best by United Distrib. Cos. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n. See 88 F.3d 1105, 1122–2......
-
Tatum v. Wheeless, Unemployment Compensation Commission
... ... laws and withdraw their funds from the federal trust fund ... (Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. A., section 301 et seq..; ... section 904, 42 U.S.C. A., ... California, Massachusetts, and New York, ail substantially ... similar to the Mississippi statute, have been before the ... courts of ... R., U. S. 1; Bromley v ... McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124; New York Trust Co. v ... Eisner, 256 U.S. 345: Utah Power & Light Co. v ... Pfost, 286 U.S. 165; Citizens Tel. Co. v ... ...
-
THE REASONABLENESS OF THE "REASONABLENESS" STANDARD OF HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW UNDER THE ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996.
...of 1789, 37 HARV. L. REV. 49, 49-51 (1923). (37.) As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes advised us it often might. N.Y. Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921) ("Upon this point a page of history is worth a volume of (38.) U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, [section] 1 ("No State ... shall deprive an......
-
Behind the Scenes of the Trademark Modernization Act: An Interview with Stephen Lee
...Act of 1990 (VARA), Pub. L. No. 101-650, tit. VI, 104 Stat. 5089, 5128–33 (codified at 17 U.S.C. § 106A). 29. N.Y. Tr. Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921). Polsinelli proudly supports the American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property Law’s 2021 Mark T. Banner Honorees for th......
-
The Law of District Court Stays for USPTO Proceedings
...Act of 1990 (VARA), Pub. L. No. 101-650, tit. VI, 104 Stat. 5089, 5128–33 (codified at 17 U.S.C. § 106A). 29. N.Y. Tr. Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921). Polsinelli proudly supports the American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property Law’s 2021 Mark T. Banner Honorees for th......
-
Revisiting Smith: Stare Decisis and Free Exercise Doctrine.
...practice and noting Justice Holmes's aphorism that "a page of history is worth a volume of logic" (quoting N.Y. Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (235.) See Am. Legion v. Am. Humanist Ass'n, 139 S. Ct. 2067, 2097 (2019) (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment). (236.) See id. Consider,......