291 U.S. 192 - Reynolds v. F Cooper Same
291 US 192 Reynolds v. F Cooper Same
291 U.S. 192
54 S.Ct. 356
78 L.Ed. 725
Marshall S. REYNOLDS, Individually and as Collector of Internal Revenue, Petitioner,
v.
Richard F. COOPER. SAME v. Barbara V. COOPER. SAME v. Richard F. COOPER and Barbara V. Cooper.
Nos. 227—229.
Argued Dec. 11, 1933.
Decided Jan. 15, 1934.
The Attorney General andMr. Erwin N. Griswold, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. N. E. Corthell, of Laramie, Wyo., for respondents.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Advertisement
In each of these causes a beneficiary received from trustees royalties arising from a lease of oil and gas lands in Wyoming. Taxes were exacted upon the full amounts so received. Separate suits were brought to recover proper allowances for depletion. The respondents prevailed in both of the courts below. Here the causes were heard together.
The Solicitor General says: 'The question is identical with that raised in Helvering v. Falk, 291 U.S. 183, 54 S.Ct. 353, 78 L.Ed. 719, and the argument made in the Government's brief in that case is likewise applicable here. * * * There is therefore substantially no difference between the position of the beneficiaries in this case and the Falk Case.'
The judgments below (64 F.(2d) 644) are affirmed upon authority of Helvering v. Falk, 291 U.S. 183, 54 S.Ct. 353, 78 L.Ed. 719, decided this day.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS, Mr. Justice STONE, and Mr. Justice CARDOZO think that these cases are to be distinguished from Helvering v. Falk, 291 U.S. 183, 54 S.Ct. 353, 78 L.Ed. 719, just decided, because of the nature of the duties imposed upon the trustees, and of the remainder interest granted to the beneficiaries by the trust instrument presently involved, and accordingly concur in the result.