Summary

Charles Evans Hughes Burnet v. Brooks — Opinion of the Court

The decisive point is that the criterion of state taxing power by virtue of the relation of the states to each other under the Constitution is not the criterion of the taxing power of the United States by virtue of its sovereignty in relation to the property of nonresidents. The Constitution creates no such relation between the United States and foreign countries as it creates between the states themselves.
Source: Wikisource

Charles Evans Hughes Burnet v. Brooks — Opinion of the Court

Is the income from the stock, bonds, and mortgages, held by the Pennsylvania Company (the agent) , derived from property owned in the United States? A learned argument is made to the effect that the stock certificates, bonds, and mortgages are not property, that they are but evidences of the ownership of interests which are property; that the property, in a legal sense, represented by the securities, would exist if the physical evidences thereof were destroyed.
Source: Wikisource

Charles Evans Hughes Burnet v. Brooks — Opinion of the Court

In the case of the foreign citizen no taxation, of course, falls, except upon property situate within the United Kingdom, and I know no reason either under the law of nations, by the custom of nations, or in the nature of things why property within the jurisdiction of this country, possessed and held under the protection of its laws, should not, upon transfer from the dead to the living, pay the same toll which would have been paid by property enjoying the same protection but owned by a deceased British subject.' Id., pp.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature