Case: REYNOLDS, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, v. RICHARD F. COOPER
Abbreviation: Reynolds v. Cooper
Decision Date: 1934-01-15
Docket Number: No. 227
Citation: 291 U.S. 192
Volume: 291
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: REYNOLDS, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, v. RICHARD F. COOPER.
Judges: Mr. Justice Brandeis, Mr. Justice Stone, and Mr. Justice Cardozo think that these cases are to be distinguished from No. 225, Helvering y. Falk, just decided, because of the nature of the duties imposed upon the trustees, and of the remainder interest granted to the beneficiaries by the trust instrument presently involved, and accordingly concur in the result.
Pages: 192–193

Head Matter:
REYNOLDS, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, v. RICHARD F. COOPER.
No. 227.
Argued December 11, 1933.
Decided January 15, 1934.
Mr. Erwin N. Griswold, with whom Solicitor General Biggs, Mr. Sewall Key, and Miss Helen R. Carloss were on the brief, for petitioner.
Mr. N. E. Corthell, with whom Mr. A. W. McCollough was on the brief, for respondents.
Together with No. 228, Reynolds, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. Barbara V. Cooper, and No. 229, Reynolds, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. Richard F. Cooper et al., certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice McReynolds
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In each of these causes a beneficiary received from trustees royalties arising from a lease of oil and gas lands. in Wyoming. Taxes were exacted upon the full amounts so received. Separate suits were brought to recover proper allowances for depletion. The respondents prevailed in both of the courts below. Here the causes were heard together.
The Solicitor General says — " The question is identical with that raised in Helvering v. Falk, No. 225, October Term, 1933, and the argument made in the Government's brief in that case is likewise applicable here. . . . There is therefore substantially no difference between the position of the beneficiaries in this case and the Falk case."
The judgments below are affirmed upon authority of Helvering v. Falk, decided this day, ante, p. 183.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Brandeis, Mr. Justice Stone, and Mr. Justice Cardozo think that these cases are to be distinguished from No. 225, Helvering y. Falk, just decided, because of the nature of the duties imposed upon the trustees, and of the remainder interest granted to the beneficiaries by the trust instrument presently involved, and accordingly concur in the result.