From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
United States v. Carlton
United States Supreme Court
512 U.S. 26 (1994)
In October 1986, a federal tax law was enacted. Under this law, if an estate sold employer securities to an employee stock-ownership plan, the estate could claim an estate-tax deduction for half the sale proceeds. The law was designed to encourage employee stock-ownership plans and expected to result in a $300 million revenue loss for the federal government (defendant). Jerry Carlton (plaintiff) was the executor of Willametta Day’s estate. On behalf of the estate, Carlton bought employer securities worth $11.2 million in December 1986 and sold them to that company’s employee stock-ownership plan two days later for $10.6 million. Although this sale resulted in a $600,000 loss, under the new law, the estate could deduct half of the sale price, $5.3 million. This deduction saved the estate well over $600,000 in estate taxes, resulting in a large net gain. However, the next month, the federal government realized that the law contained a drafting error. As the law was written, transactions like the one made by Carlton were allowed and would cost the federal government approximately $7 billion instead of the anticipated $300 million. In February 1987, an amendment was introduced to limit the deduction to its originally intended target: stocks that a decedent owned at the time of death. This amendment was ultimately enacted in December 1987 but applied retroactively to all transactions since October 1986. Accordingly, Day’s estate was denied its $5.3 million deduction. Carlton petitioned for the deduction to be applied, arguing that the amendment violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution because its retroactive nature meant that taxpayers had no notice of the new rule before acting. The district court ruled that the amendment’s retroactive application was constitutional. The appellate court found that the retroactive application was unduly harsh and oppressive and, therefore, that the amendment was unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court agreed to review the issue.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Blackmun, J.)
Concurrence (Scalia, J.)
Concurrence (O’Connor, J.)
What to do next…
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
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.