Hopkins v. Bacon 21 23, 1930, No. 84
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | ROBERTS |
| Citation | 282 U.S. 122,51 S.Ct. 62,75 L.Ed. 249 |
| Parties | HOPKINS, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. BACON. Argued Oct. 21-23, 1930 |
| Decision Date | 24 November 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 84 |
v.
BACON.
The Attorney General and Mr. Thomas D. Thacher, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Page 123
Messrs. Palmer Hutcheson, of Houston, Tex., Harry C. Weeks, of Wichita Falls, Tax., and Rhodes S. Baker, of Dallas, Tex., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 123-124 intentionally omitted]
Page 125
Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case comes here on writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Fifth Cicui t. 281 U. S. 715, 50 S. Ct. 460, 74 L. Ed. 1135. It involves the same questions with respect to community income under Texas law as are involved in Nos. 15 (Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U. S. 101, 51 S. Ct. 58, 75 L. Ed. 239) and 106 (Goodell v. Koch, 282 U. S. 118, 51 S. Ct. 62, 75 L. Ed. 247) under the law of Arizona and Washington.
Respondent was assessed additional income tax for 1927, because he and his wife had made separate returns and had each returned one-half of the community income, whereas the Commissioner of Internal Revenue asserted that the respondent must return the whole thereof. Respondent paid under protest, brought suit in the District Court (27 F.(2d) 140), and recovered judgment. The collector appealed and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment (38 F.(2d) 651).
In view of our decision in No. 15, the only matter to be examined here is whether under the community property system of Texas the wife has a mere expectancy, as she would under the law of California (cf. United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, 46 S. Ct. 148, 70 L. Ed. 285), or on the contrary has a proprietary vested interest in the community
Page 126
property such as makes her an owner of one-half of the community income.
The statutes contain sweeping provisions as to what shall be included in community property. They provide that each spouse shall have testamentary power over his or her respective interest in the community property. In the event of failure to exercise such testamentary power they provide that the property shall go in the first instance to the descendants of the deceased spouse. They provide, as is usual in States having the community system, that the husband shall have power of management and control such that he may deal with community property very much as if it were his own. In spite of this, however, it is settled...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, No. 77-533
...See Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101, 51 S.Ct. 58, 75 L.Ed. 239; Bender v. Pfaff, 282 U.S. 127, 51 S.Ct. 64, 75 L.Ed. 252; Hopkins v. Bacon, 282 U.S. 122, 51 S.Ct. 62, 75 L.Ed. 249; United States v. Yazell, 382 U.S. 341, 86 S.Ct. 500, 15 L.Ed.2d 404. See generally Principles. Fundamental to the......
-
Bagur v. C. I. R., Nos. 76-4466
...the community income. See, e. g., Poe v. Seaborn; Goodell v. Koch, 1930, 282 U.S. 118, 51 S.Ct. 62, 75 L.Ed. 247; Hopkins v. Bacon, 1930, 282 U.S. 122, 51 S.Ct. 62, 75 L.Ed. 249; Bender v. Pfaff, 1930, 282 U.S. 127, 51 S.Ct. 64, 75 L.Ed. 252. Needless to say, this was a great boon to commun......
-
United States v. Mitchell, No. 798
...property laws of Arizona, Texas, and Louisiana. Goodell v. Koch, 282 U.S. 118, 51 S.Ct. 62, 75 L.Ed. 247 (1930); Hopkins v. Bacon, 282 U.S. 122, 51 S.Ct. 62, 75 L.Ed. 249 (1930); Bender v. Pfaff, 282 U.S. 127, 51 S.Ct. 64, 75 L.Ed. 252 (1930). In the Louisiana case it was said: 'If the test......
-
Commissioner of Int. Rev. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, No. 16488.
...& Trust Co., 1937, 186 La. 623, 173 So. 126. Nabors, Insurance in Louisiana, 6 Tul.L. Rev. 515, 529 (1932). 35 In Hopkins v. Bacon, 1930, 282 U.S. 122, 51 S.Ct. 62, 63, 75 L.Ed. 249, involving income taxes, the United States Supreme Court carefully reviewed the Texas cases on community prop......
-
Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, No. 77-533
...See Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101, 51 S.Ct. 58, 75 L.Ed. 239; Bender v. Pfaff, 282 U.S. 127, 51 S.Ct. 64, 75 L.Ed. 252; Hopkins v. Bacon, 282 U.S. 122, 51 S.Ct. 62, 75 L.Ed. 249; United States v. Yazell, 382 U.S. 341, 86 S.Ct. 500, 15 L.Ed.2d 404. See generally Principles. Fundamental to the......
-
Bagur v. C. I. R., Nos. 76-4466
...the community income. See, e. g., Poe v. Seaborn; Goodell v. Koch, 1930, 282 U.S. 118, 51 S.Ct. 62, 75 L.Ed. 247; Hopkins v. Bacon, 1930, 282 U.S. 122, 51 S.Ct. 62, 75 L.Ed. 249; Bender v. Pfaff, 1930, 282 U.S. 127, 51 S.Ct. 64, 75 L.Ed. 252. Needless to say, this was a great boon to commun......
-
United States v. Mitchell, No. 798
...property laws of Arizona, Texas, and Louisiana. Goodell v. Koch, 282 U.S. 118, 51 S.Ct. 62, 75 L.Ed. 247 (1930); Hopkins v. Bacon, 282 U.S. 122, 51 S.Ct. 62, 75 L.Ed. 249 (1930); Bender v. Pfaff, 282 U.S. 127, 51 S.Ct. 64, 75 L.Ed. 252 (1930). In the Louisiana case it was said: 'If the test......
-
Commissioner of Int. Rev. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, No. 16488.
...& Trust Co., 1937, 186 La. 623, 173 So. 126. Nabors, Insurance in Louisiana, 6 Tul.L. Rev. 515, 529 (1932). 35 In Hopkins v. Bacon, 1930, 282 U.S. 122, 51 S.Ct. 62, 63, 75 L.Ed. 249, involving income taxes, the United States Supreme Court carefully reviewed the Texas cases on community prop......