Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Harris v. Commissioner

340 U.S. 106 (1950)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...

Harris v. Commissioner

United States Supreme Court

340 U.S. 106 (1950)

Facts

Cornelia Harris (plaintiff) and Reginald Wright filed for divorce in a Nevada state court. As part of the divorce, Harris and Wright negotiated an agreement to divide their property interests. Both parties received property under the agreement. However, Wright received approximately $107,000 more in property value than Harris in exchange for agreeing to release his marital rights in Harris’s remaining property. The agreement also stated that it would be binding on the parties regardless of what the divorce court ordered. The court then issued a divorce decree that incorporated most but not all of the agreement’s terms. For instance, in the agreement, Harris promised to pay one of Wright’s debts, but the court order did not make Harris responsible for that debt. When Harris transferred property to Wright, the commissioner of Internal Revenue (commissioner) (defendant) determined that Harris’s transfers were being made pursuant to the agreement. Because United States Supreme Court precedent held that a transfer of property in exchange for a release of marital rights was a gift, the commissioner imposed a gift tax on the transfers that were supported only by Wright’s release of his marital rights. Harris petitioned the United States Tax Court for a determination that the transfers were not gifts because they were made pursuant to a court order, not an agreement. The Tax Court agreed and found that Harris did not owe gift taxes. The Second Circuit reversed the Tax Court, finding that the transfers were taxable. The United States Supreme Court agreed to review the issue.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Douglas, J.)

Dissent (Frankfurter, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 35,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership