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

United States v. Mcclure, Administratrix

• 1938 • 305 U.S. 472 • Hughes Court
In the United States v. McClure, Administratrix case of 1938, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over inheritance tax law. The decedent was a resident of Pennsylvania but had bonds stored in safe deposit boxes in New Jersey at the time of his death. According to Pennsylvania state law, these bonds were not subject to inheritance tax because they were physically located outside of the state when he died. However, federal authorities argued that since the decedent was domiciled in Pennsylvania...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: 1938
Docket: 154
305 U.S. 472
59 S. Ct. 335
83 L. Ed. 296
1939 U.S. LEXIS 937
Argued: Dec 08, 1938

United States v. Mcclure, Administratrix

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the United States v. McClure, Administratrix case of 1938, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over inheritance tax law. The decedent was a resident of Pennsylvania but had bonds stored in safe deposit boxes in New Jersey at the time of his death. According to Pennsylvania state law, these bonds were not subject to inheritance tax because they were physically located outside of the state when he died. However, federal authorities argued that since the decedent was domiciled in Pennsylvania and had control over these assets regardless of their physical location, they should be included as part of his gross estate for federal taxation purposes under Revenue Act provisions. The court sided with federal authorities and held that intangible personal property such as stocks or bonds is considered part of an individual's gross estate for taxation purposes if it is within their possession or control at time-of-death irrespective its physical location. This ruling clarified how domicile impacts taxable estates under U.S Federal Law.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. McClure, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 23(c) of the Revenue Act of 1928 was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this section should be interpreted to allow deductions from gross income for losses sustained during a taxable year and not compensated by insurance or otherwise. They disagreed with the majority's view that only those losses which were directly connected with a trade or business could be deducted under this provision. According to them, such an interpretation would exclude all personal casualty losses from deduction, contrary to what they believe is Congress' intent in enacting this law - providing relief for taxpayers who have suffered significant financial loss due to circumstances beyond their control.

Opinion written by Justice HLBlack
Decided: Jan 03, 1939
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