Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

161 F. 90

Docket No. 9.

McCoach v. Bamberger

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided March 9, 1908.)

Third Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1908-03-09

<p>Internal Revenue — Legacy Taxes — Effect of Repeal of Statute.</p> <p>Legacy taxes under War Revenue Act June 13, 1898, c. 448, §§ 29, 30, 30 Stat. 464, 405, as amended by Act March 2, 1901, c. 806, §§ 10, 11, 31 Stat. 940, 948 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 2307, 2308), which were made due and payable one year after the death of the testator, are not collectible on the estates of persons who died within one year prior to July 1, 1902, at which time the repeal of said section 29 took effect (Act April 12, 1902, c. 500, § 7, 32 Stat. 97 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 049]).</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1910

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on McCoach v. Philadelphia Trust, Safe Deposit & Ins.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1908-03-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Internal Revenue — Legacy Taxes — Effect of Repeal of Statute.

¶2Legacy taxes under War Revenue Act June 13, 1898, c. 448, §§ 29, 30, 30 Stat. 464, 405, as amended by Act March 2, 1901, c. 806, §§ 10, 11, 31 Stat. 940, 948 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 2307, 2308), which were made due and payable one year after the death of the testator, are not collectible on the estates of persons who died within one year prior to July 1, 1902, at which time the repeal of said section 29 took effect (Act April 12, 1902, c. 500, § 7, 32 Stat. 97 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 049]).

¶3In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern; District of Pennsylvania.

¶4Jasper Yeates Brinton and J. Whitaker Thompson, for plaintiff in error.

¶5Wm. Jay Turner, for defendants in error.

¶6Before DADDAS, GRAY, and BUEEINGTON, Circuit Judges.

¶7PER CURIAM.

¶8Counsel for both parties agreeing that the only question sought to be raised in this case is that which was presented in the cases of McCoach v. Trust Co. and McCoach v. Norris, 142 Fed. 120, 73 C. C. A. 610, we need only say that, as there has not in the meantime been any contrary decision of that question by the Supreme Court, we adhere to the position taken by us in the cases referred to, and accordingly the judgment in the present case is affirmed.

/161/f1d/90 · .json · Public domain