United States v. Robbins, No. 493
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | HOLMES |
| Citation | 46 S.Ct. 148,70 L.Ed. 285,269 U.S. 315 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. ROBBINS et al |
| Docket Number | No. 493 |
| Decision Date | 04 January 1926 |
v.
ROBBINS et al.
Messrs. W. D.
Page 316
Mitchell, Sol. Gen., and Robert P. Reeder, both of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 316-321 intentionally omitted]
Page 321
Messrs. Lloyd M. Robbins and Peter F. Dunne, both of San Francisco, Cal., for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 321-325 intentionally omitted]
Page 325
Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit to recover $6,788.03 income tax for the year 1918, paid by R. D. Robbins, late of California. Mr.
Page 326
Robbins was married and the income taxed came from community property in California, acquired before 1917, when some changes were made in the law, and from the earnings of R. Robbins. He was required by the Treasury Department to return and pay the tax upon the whole income, against the effort of Mr. and Mrs. Robbins to file returns each of one-half. The result was that he had to pay the amount sued for, above what would have had to be paid if his contention had been allowed. The District Court found the facts as agreed by the parties and upon them ruled that the plaintiffs, the executors of Robbins, were entitled to recover as matter of law. Robbins v. United States, 5 F.(2d) 690. A writ of error was taken by the United States, before the Act of February 13, 1925, c. 229, 43 Stat. 936, went into effect. Greenport Basin & Construction Co. v. United States, 260 U. S. 512, 514, 43 s. Ct. 183, 67 L. Ed. 370.
Elaborate argument was devoted to the question whether the interest of a wife in community property has the relatively substantial character in California that it has in some other States. That she has vested rights has been determined by this Court with reference to some jurisdictions, Warburton v. White, 176 U. S. 484, 20 S. Ct. 404, 44 L. Ed. 555; Arnett v. Reade, 220 U. S. 311, 31 S. Ct. 425, 55 L. Ed. 477, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1040; and the Treasury Department has carried those rights to the point of allowing a division in the return of community income in other States where the community system prevails. Regulations 65 relating to the Invome Tax under the Revenue Act of 1924, art. 31. Its adoption of a different rule for California was based, we presume, upon the notion that in that State a wife had a mere expectancy while the husband was alive.
If on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDONALD v. SENN, No. 5022
...had no vested interest. Stewart v. Stewart, 204 Cal. 546, 269 P. 439, 442; Billis v. Welch, 9 Cir., 80 F.2d 165; United States v. Robbins, 269 U.S. 315, 46 S.Ct. 148, 70 L.Ed. 285.' (Emphasis mine.) The majority seek to weaken the effect of the Law Review articles quoted by suggesting they ......
-
Bagur v. C. I. R., Nos. 76-4466
...it is acquired . . .". Shortly before Phillips was decided the United States Supreme Court had decided in United States v. Robbins, 1926, 269 U.S. 315, 46 S.Ct. 148, 70 L.Ed. 285, that wives residing in California could not report one-half of the community income on their return, because th......
-
Untermyer v. Anderson, No. 221
...which taxed incomes for the calendar year 1918, was applied, without question as to its constitutionality, in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, 46 S. Ct. 148, 70 L. Ed. 285, and numerous other cases. The Corporation Tax Act of August 5, 1909, c. 6, § 38, 36 Stat. 11, 112 (Comp. St. §......
-
Coolidge v. Long 1930, Nos. 33
...clause of the Constitution or the due process or equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, 326, 46 S. Ct. 148, 149, 70 L. Ed. 285, this court considered the character of the wife's estate during the existence of the community, and said:......
-
McDONALD v. SENN, No. 5022
...had no vested interest. Stewart v. Stewart, 204 Cal. 546, 269 P. 439, 442; Billis v. Welch, 9 Cir., 80 F.2d 165; United States v. Robbins, 269 U.S. 315, 46 S.Ct. 148, 70 L.Ed. 285.' (Emphasis mine.) The majority seek to weaken the effect of the Law Review articles quoted by suggesting they ......
-
Bagur v. C. I. R., Nos. 76-4466
...it is acquired . . .". Shortly before Phillips was decided the United States Supreme Court had decided in United States v. Robbins, 1926, 269 U.S. 315, 46 S.Ct. 148, 70 L.Ed. 285, that wives residing in California could not report one-half of the community income on their return, because th......
-
Untermyer v. Anderson, No. 221
...which taxed incomes for the calendar year 1918, was applied, without question as to its constitutionality, in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, 46 S. Ct. 148, 70 L. Ed. 285, and numerous other cases. The Corporation Tax Act of August 5, 1909, c. 6, § 38, 36 Stat. 11, 112 (Comp. St. §......
-
Coolidge v. Long 1930, Nos. 33
...clause of the Constitution or the due process or equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, 326, 46 S. Ct. 148, 149, 70 L. Ed. 285, this court considered the character of the wife's estate during the existence of the community, and said:......