Brady v. Anderson
Decision Date | 08 February 1917 |
Docket Number | 149. |
Parties | BRADY et al. v. ANDERSON. [1] |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Joline Larkin & Rathbone, of New York City (John M. Perry, of Brooklyn, N.Y., and Charles A. Doolittle, Jr., of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs in error.
H Snowden Marshall, U.S. Atty., of New York City (Ben. A Matthews, Asst. U.S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel) for defendant in error.
Before WARD, ROGERS, and HOUGH, Circuit Judges.
This is an action against the collector of internal revenue by the executors of Anthony N. Brady, deceased, to recover taxes assessed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and paid by them under protest upon income received by Brady during his lifetime before the Income Tax Act of October 3, 1913, imposing a tax, had been passed.
The Sixteenth Amendment, by virtue of which the statute was enacted, was ratified February 28, 1913, and the Supreme Court has for that reason held that Congress had power to make it retroactive to March 1, 1913. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 20, 36 Sup.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493.
Anthony N. Brady died July 22, 1913, and his executors, in accordance with the requirement of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, made a return of the income received by him between March 1, when the act went into effect, and July 22, 1913, when he died. The Commissioner assessed a tax of $61,654.72.
The case having come on for trial before Grubb, J., and each side having moved for the direction of a verdict, he directed a verdict for the defendant. This is a writ of error to the judgment entered thereon.
The questions presented are purely of law, involving only the construction of the statute. We confine ourselves to the consideration of the provisions relating to citizens and residents of the United States.
Section II of the act reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Diamond Match Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 7.
...v. United States, 8 Cir., 1925, 8 F.2d 913, certiorari denied 271 U. S. 661, 46 S.Ct. 473, 70 L.Ed. 1138; Brady v. Anderson, 2 Cir., 1917, 240 F. 665, certiorari denied 244 U.S. 654, 37 S.Ct. 652, 61 L.Ed. 5 Untermyer v. Anderson, 276 U.S. 440, 446, 48 S.Ct. 353, 354, 72 L.Ed. 645; Blodgett......
-
Updike v. United States
...as amended, and also to the war income tax and the war excess profits tax imposed by the Act of October 3, 1917. Brady et al. v. Anderson, 240 F. 665, 153 C. C. A. 463. A corporation so situated will make a return on revised form 1031, covering the period in 1917 during which it was in busi......
-
Owen v. Fletcher Sav. & Trust Bldg. Co.
...of other jurisdictions under like circumstances. Income tax is assessed against the personal income received by the payer. Brady v. Anderson (C. C. A. 1917) 240 F. 665. We have not found any authority holding that it is in the nature of an excise tax or an embargo on the right to receive in......
-
Owen v. Fletcher Savings & Trust Building Co.
... ... [189 N.E. 180] ... under like circumstances. Income tax is assessed against the ... personal income received by the payer. Brady v ... Anderson (1917), 240 F. 665. We have not found any ... authority holding that it is in the nature of an excise tax ... or an embargo on ... ...