Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)
U.S. Supreme Court, (November 25, 1929)
Docket number: 27
Permanent Link:
http://vlex.com/vid/20026400
Id. vLex: VLEX-20026400
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)
Search in this document
Document options
RSSU.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - William A. Landreth, Sr., Mary Adele Landreth Smith, Co-Trustees of W.A. Landreth, Jr., Trust, Under the Will of Adele H. Landreth, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee., 963 F.2d 84 (5th Cir. 1992) Sr., Mary Adele Landreth Smith, Co-Trustees of W.A. Landreth, Jr., Trust, Under the Will of Adele H. Landreth, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee.
Constitution of the United States (Annotated) - Section 9: Powers Denied to Congress
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. - Figueroa v. U.S. (Fed. Cir. 2006)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Cir. - Murphy, Marrita vs. IRS (D.C. Cir. 2007)
Constitution of the United States (Annotated) - Fifth Amendment: Rights Of Persons
U.S. Supreme Court BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)
[Page 280 U.S. 124, 142] given and without regard to any qualifying circumstances, is a tax by indirection upon the property, as much, for example, as a tax upon the mere possession by the owner of a farm, measured by the value of the land possessed, would be a tax on the land. To call either of them an excise is to sacrifice substance to a mere form of words. I think, therefore, the first question certified, without stopping to consider the second, should be answered in the affirmative. Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER and Mr. Justice BUTLER concur in this opinion.