Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U.S. 514 (1926)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U.S. 514 (1926)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 269 U.S. 504, click here.
Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell Nos. 183 and 376 Submitted November 30, 1925 Decided January 11, 1926 269 U.S. 514
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Syllabus
1. Upon a writ of error to the district court based on a constitutional question, the jurisdiction of this Court is not limited to that question, but extends to the whole case. P. 518.
2. A consulting engineer engaged as such by a state or local subdivision for work not permanent or continuous in character on public water supply and sewage disposal projects, whose duties are prescribed by his contract and who takes no oath of office and is free to accept other, concurrent employment, is neither an officer nor an employee within the meaning of § 201(a) of the War Revenue Act of 1917, exempting from income tax the compensation or fees of officers and employees under any state or local subdivision thereof. P. 519.
3. The constitutional limitation forbidding the federal government and the state to tax each other’s agencies must receive a practical construction permitting each government to function with the minimum of interference from the other. P. 523.
4. One who is not an officer or employee of a state does not establish exemption from federal income tax merely by showing that his income was received as compensation for service rendered under contract with the state when it does not appear that the tax impairs in any substantial manner his ability to discharge his obligations to the state or the ability of the state or its subdivisions to procure the services of private individuals to aid them in their undertakings. P. 524.
299 F. 812, affirmed.
Error to review a judgment of the district court in a suit brought against a former collector to recover money paid under protest as income tax. The judgment allowed some of the items claimed and rejected others. Both sides sued out writs of error. That of the collector (No. 376) was not pressed at the argument in this Court, and was dismissed.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U.S. 514 (1926) in 269 U.S. 514 269 U.S. 515–269 U.S. 518. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=5B3QD8CEBH5J9VB.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U.S. 514 (1926), in 269 U.S. 514, pp. 269 U.S. 515–269 U.S. 518. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=5B3QD8CEBH5J9VB.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U.S. 514 (1926). cited in 1926, 269 U.S. 514, pp.269 U.S. 515–269 U.S. 518. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=5B3QD8CEBH5J9VB.
|