Summary

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Corliss v. Bowers — Opinion of the Court

But taxation is not so much concerned with the refinements of title as it is with actual command over the property taxed-the actual benefit for which the tax is paid. If a man directed his bank to pay over income as received to a servant or friend, until further orders, no one would doubt that he could be taxed upon the amounts so paid.
Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Corliss v. Bowers — Opinion of the Court

Northern Trust Co., 278 U.S. 339, 49 S.C.t. 123, 73 L. Ed. 410. Still speaking with reference to taxation, if a man disposes of a fund in such a way that another is allowed to enjoy the income which it is in the power of the first to appropriate it does not matter whether the permission is given by assent or by failure to express dissent. The income that is subject to a man's unfettered command and that he is free to enjoy at his own opinion may be taxed to him as his income, whether he sees fit to enjoy it or not.
Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Corliss v. Bowers — Opinion of the Court

It is not necessary to quote more words because there can be no doubt that the petitioner fully reserved the power at any moment to abolish or change the trust at his will. The statute referred to provides that 'where the grantor of a trust has, at any time during the taxable year, * * * the power to revest in himself title to any part of the corpus of the trust, then the income of such part of the trust for such taxable year shall be included in computing the net income of the grantor.' Section 219 (g) with other similar provisions as to income in section 219 (h) .
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature