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

Helvering, Commissioner Of Internal Revenue, v. Illinois Life Insurance Co.

• 1936 • 299 U.S. 88 • Hughes Court
The U.S. Supreme Court case Helvering v. Illinois Life Insurance Co., 1936, revolved around the taxability of life insurance companies' income under the Revenue Act of 1928. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue argued that certain amounts transferred from a life insurance company's "undivided surplus" to its "surplus account" should be considered taxable income. However, the Illinois Life Insurance Company contended these transfers were not taxable as they represented only an internal...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: 1936
Docket: 27
299 U.S. 88
57 S. Ct. 63
81 L. Ed. 56
1936 U.S. LEXIS 9
Argued: Oct 16, 1936

Helvering, Commissioner Of Internal Revenue, v. Illinois Life Insurance Co.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court case Helvering v. Illinois Life Insurance Co., 1936, revolved around the taxability of life insurance companies' income under the Revenue Act of 1928. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue argued that certain amounts transferred from a life insurance company's "undivided surplus" to its "surplus account" should be considered taxable income. However, the Illinois Life Insurance Company contended these transfers were not taxable as they represented only an internal rearrangement of funds within their surplus accounts and did not constitute distributable profits or gains. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Commissioner, holding that such transfers indeed constituted taxable income under Section 203(a)(1) and (2) of the Revenue Act because they increased policyholders’ interest in assets free from death claims beyond what was required by law or contract at year-end. This decision clarified how sections related to taxation on life insurance companies are interpreted and applied.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Helvering v. Illinois Life Insurance Co., Justice Stone argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 204 of the Revenue Act was incorrect. He believed that this section should not be interpreted to mean that a life insurance company could deduct from its gross income, in computing net income subject to tax, an amount equal to all policy reserves required by law. Instead, he contended that only those amounts which represent actual additions made within the taxable year to reserve funds can be deducted from gross income under Section 204(c)(2). The justice asserted his view on how these deductions should be calculated and disagreed with how they were being applied in practice based on what he saw as a misinterpretation of legislative intent.

Opinion written by Justice PButler
Decided: Nov 09, 1936
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