Bingham v. United States

Decision Date09 December 1935
Docket NumberNo. 83,83
Citation296 U.S. 211,80 L.Ed. 160,56 S.Ct. 180
PartiesBINGHAM et al. v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

[Syllabus from pages 211-212 intentionally omitted] Mr. George S. Fuller, of Boston, Mass., for petitioners.

Messrs. Homer S. Cummings, Atty. Gen., and David E. Hudson, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 212-216 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case involves the construction and constitutionality, as applied, of section 402(f) of the Revenue Act of 1918 (40 Stat. 1097, 1098), which provides that the value of the gross estate of the decedent shall be determined by including the value, at the time of his death, of all property '(f) to the extent of the amount receivable by the executor as insurance under policies taken out by the decedent upon his own life; and to the extent of the excess over $40,000 of the amount receivable by all other beneficiaries as insurance under policies taken out by the decedent upon his own life.'

Petitioners are the executors of the will of King Upton, who died in 1921 while the act of 1918 was in force. His wife survived him. Long prior to the passage of the act, a number of life insurance policies were issued to the decedent, among them four issued by the Berkshire Life Insurance Company of Massachusetts, originally payable to his estate; and one issued in 1883 by the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company of Connecticut, payable to the wife of the decedent with a condition that in case of the predecease of the wife the amount of the policy should be payable to his children; or, if there be no children or descendants of children then living, to the legal representatives of the insured. In 1904, decedent assigned the four Berkshire policies to his wife, 'provided she survives me.' The decedent had no power, none being reserved, to change the beneficiaries, to pledge or assign the policies after the assignment to his wife, or revoke that assignment or surrender the policies without the consent of the beneficiaries. Central Bank of Washington v. Hume, 128 U.S. 195, 205, 9 S.Ct. 41, 32 L.Ed. 370; Miles v. Connecticut Life Ins. Co., 147 U.S. 177, 181, 182, 183, 13 S.Ct. 275, 37 L.Ed. 128, compare dissent 147 U.S. 188, 13 S.Ct. 279; Commonwealth v. Whipple, 181 Mass. 343, 63 N.E. 919; Pingrey v. National Life Insurance Co., 144 Mass. 374, 382, 11 N.E. 562.

After having deducted the specific exemption of $40,000, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue included the proceeds of these five policies in the decedent's gross estate, for the purpose of the federal estate tax. An action was brought in a Federal District Court to recover the amount of the tax resulting from the inclusion of these proceeds. That court rejected the view of the Commissioner and awarded judgment to the taxpayers upon the authority of Lewellyn v. Frick, 268 U.S. 238, 45 S.Ct. 487, 488, 69 L.Ed. 934; Bingham v. United States, 7 F.Supp. 907.

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Frick Case was distinguishable. United States v. Bingham, 76 F.(2d) 573. We think the view taken by the District Court is the correct one.

1. Eleven policies were involved in the Frick Case, all antedating the passage of the Act. Among them was one issued by the Berkshire Company and another issued by the Connecticut Mutual. These policies in terms were identical with the corresponding policies in question here. The assignment of the Berkshire policy there was the same as the assignments here. This court applied the rule that Acts of Congress are to be construed, if possible, so as to avoid grave doubts as to their constitutionality; and said that such doubts were avoided by construing the statute as referring only to transactions taking place after it was passed. In that connection we invoked the general principle 'that laws are not to be considered as applying to cases which arose before their passage,' when to disregard it would be to impose...

To continue reading

Request your trial
70 cases
  • Helvering v. Hallock Same v. Squire Rothensies v. Huston Bryant v. Helvering 8212 112, 183 399
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 29, 1940
    ...upon the authority of May v. Heiner and McCormick v. Burnet, supra. Finally, the McCormick case was followed in Bingham v. United States, 296 U.S. 211, 56 S.Ct. 180, 80 L.Ed. 160. Since the opinion of the court appears to treat the St. Louis cases as the origin of the principle there announ......
  • Walker v. United States, 10415.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • March 30, 1936
    ...cases dealing with property transfers inter vivos dependent upon and vesting only at death of the transferer. Bingham v. United States, 296 U.S. 211, 56 S.Ct. 180, 80 L.Ed. ___, definitely determines this argument against appellee — see Industrial Trust Co. et al. v. United States, 296 U.S.......
  • Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Brown
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • February 28, 1967
    ...thereto, are to be taken as covered by the court's decision though not mentioned in the opinion. Bingham v. United States, 296 U.S. 211, 218-219, 56 S.Ct. 180, 80 L.Ed. 160 (1935); Seward v. Heinze, 262 F.2d 42, 44 (9 Cir. It has been specifically held that where a state statute is referred......
  • Davis v. Boston & MR Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • April 14, 1937
    ... ... 89 F.2d 370          Before BINGHAM, WILSON, and MORTON, Circuit Judges ...         WILSON, Circuit Judge ... 14, 1935, is an Act of Congress within its powers under the Constitution of the United States, or in violation of the Fifth Amendment thereof; and the only way in which that issue is ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT