Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Tax
POWERS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
312 U.S. 25985 L. Ed. 817·Supreme Court of the United States·1941
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
POWERS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 486.
Argued. January 7, 1941.
Decided February 3, 1941.
Mr. Ralph G. Boyd for petitioner.
Mr. J. Louis Monarch, with whom Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key, Arnold Raum, and Joseph M. Jones were on the brief, for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Douglas]
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is the same as that in Guggenheim v. Rasquin, ante, p. 254. Petitioner in November and December, 1935, purchased single-premium policies of insurance on her own life and late in December, 1935, irrevocably assigned them as gifts. The Commissioner determined a deficiency, claiming that the value of the policies for gift-tax purposes was the cost of duplicating them at the dates of the gifts, not the cash-surrender value as reported by petitioner. The Board of'.Tax Appeals held that the value of the gifts was their cash-surrender value. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. 115 F. 2d 209. That judgment must be affirmed on the authority of Guggenheim v. Rasquin, supra, unless as claimed by petitioner the court below was precluded from substituting its judgment of value for that of the Board. Helvering v. Rankin, 295 U. S. 123, 131. But the question of what criterion should be. employed for determining the “value” of the gifts is a question of law. See Lucas v. Alexander, 279 U. S. 573. Accordingly, the Circuit Court of Appeals was justified in reversing the decision of the Board as “not in accordance with law.” Int. Rev. Code 1939, § 1141 (c) (1); 53 Stat. 164.
Affirmed.