|
|
Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)
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.
Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)
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 280 U.S. 117, click here.
Bromley v. McCaughn No. 27 Argued October 31, 1929 Decided November 25, 1929 280 U.S. 124
CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Syllabus
1. The tax imposed by Revenue Act of 1924, §§ 319-324, as amended by Revenue Act of 1926, § 324, upon transfers of property by gift, is not a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution, but an excise on the exercise of one of the powers incident to ownership, and need not be apportioned.Const., Art. I, §§ 2, 8, 9. P. 135.
2. The uniformity of taxation throughout the United States enjoined by Art. I, § 8, is geographic, not intrinsic. P. 138.
3. The graduations of the tax, and the exemption of gifts aggregating $50,000, gifts to any one person that do not exceed $500, and certain gifts for religious, charitable, educational, scientific, and like purposes, are consistent with the uniformity clause, and with the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id.
4. The schemes of graduation and exemption in the statute, by which the tax levied upon donors of the same total amounts may be affected by the size of the gifts to individual donees, are not so arbitrary and unreasonable as to deprive the taxpayer of property without due process. P. 139.
Answers to questions certified by the circuit court of appeals upon review of a judgment for the Collector in a suit by Bromley, a resident of the United States, to recover a tax alleged to have been illegally levied upon gifts made by him.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124 (1929) in 280 U.S. 124 280 U.S. 134. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=7CJEZ1PIBQXV5ZP.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), in 280 U.S. 124, page 280 U.S. 134. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=7CJEZ1PIBQXV5ZP.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124 (1929). cited in 1929, 280 U.S. 124, pp.280 U.S. 134. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=7CJEZ1PIBQXV5ZP.
|