Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Coombes v. Getz

• 1931 • 285 U.S. 434 • Hughes Court
In the 1931 case Coombes v. Getz, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a dispute over inheritance and property rights. The plaintiff, Mrs. Coombes, was a British citizen who had inherited California real estate from her deceased son-in-law Mr. Getz in 1923 but did not receive any income from it until 1926 due to litigation with other family members over ownership of the property. The issue before the court was whether Mrs. Coombes owed U.S federal income tax on this backdated rental income under...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Hughes Court
Term: 1931
Docket: 528
285 U.S. 434
52 S. Ct. 435
76 L. Ed. 866
1932 U.S. LEXIS 786
Argued: Mar 21, 1932

Coombes v. Getz

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1931 case Coombes v. Getz, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a dispute over inheritance and property rights. The plaintiff, Mrs. Coombes, was a British citizen who had inherited California real estate from her deceased son-in-law Mr. Getz in 1923 but did not receive any income from it until 1926 due to litigation with other family members over ownership of the property. The issue before the court was whether Mrs. Coombes owed U.S federal income tax on this backdated rental income under existing laws which exempted non-resident aliens from paying taxes on certain types of American-sourced income unless they were engaged in business within America or earned their money through personal services performed there. The Supreme Court ruled that Mrs.Coombes' rental earnings were indeed taxable because she had been "engaged in business" within America by virtue of owning and renting out Californian real estate - even though she lived abroad and did not personally manage her properties. This decision clarified that foreign landlords could be considered as conducting business activities inside United States for tax purposes if they owned American properties generating rental incomes regardless of where they resided or how actively involved they were in managing those assets.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Coombes v. Getz, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a California law prohibiting non-residents from shrimping in state waters was inconsistent with previous rulings on similar issues. He contended that this ruling violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the Constitution, which guarantees citizens of each state equal access to all privileges and immunities in every other state. According to Justice Stone, there is no substantial reason why residents should have exclusive rights over natural resources within their own states while denying those same rights to non-residents. Furthermore, he believed that such laws could lead to retaliatory measures by other states and disrupt interstate commerce.

Opinion written by Justice GSutherland
Decided: Apr 11, 1932
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms