recognizing “the governing principle of § 302(c) [of the Revenue Act of 1926] that Congress meant to include in the gross estate inter vivos gifts which may be re sorted to, as a substitute for a will, in making dispositions of property operative at death”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing “the governing principle of § 302(c) [of the Revenue Act of 1926] that Congress meant to include in the gross estate inter vivos gifts which may be re sorted to, as a substitute for a will, in making dispositions of property operative at death”
- cautioning against blindly applying stare decisis when adhering to precedent would “involve! ] collision with a prior doctrine more embracing in its scope, intrinsically sounder, and verified by experience”
- “[W]e walk on quicksand when we try to find in the absence of corrective legislation a controlling legal principle”
- “It is a basic tenet of statutory construction that [courts] rely on the intent of the legislature as that intent has been expressed.” (internal quotation omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Helvering v. Griffiths, 318 U.S. 371 (1943)
The Hallock case is clearly inapposite.
Distinguished by Gutman v. Commissioner, 41 B.T.A. 816 (1940)
We must also reject petitioner’s view that the recent decision in Helvering v. Hallock, supra, determines the present question.
The opinion
The Chief Justice
concurs in the result upon the ground that each of these cases is controlled by our decision in Klein v. United States, 283 U. S. 231 .