Taxation-Federal Income Tax-Divocrce Property Settlement as a Taxable Event

Respondent taxpayer transferred stock to his former wife pursuant to a voluntary property settlement agreement incorporated in their divorce decree. As consideration for the securities conveyed, his wife released her rights to alimony, dower, and intestate succession under Delaware law. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed as taxable gain the difference between the taxpayer\u27s basis for the stock and its market value at the time of the transfer, but the Court of Claims ruled that the taxpayer realized no taxable gain from the transfer. On certiorari, held, reversed. The exchange was a taxable event in which the taxpayer received property equivalent in value to the market worth of the securities transferred. United States v. Davis, 370 U.S. 65 (1962)

Labor Law--Federal Pre-emption--Scope of Arguable NLRB Jurisdiction

Picketing by petitioner interrupted the unloading of respondent\u27s cargo vessels. A state court granted respondent\u27s request for a permanent injunction against further picketing, despite petitioner\u27s contention that, since it was a labor organization within the meaning of section S(b) of the Labor Management Relations Act and respondent had alleged an unfair labor practice, the National Labor Relations Board had exclusive jurisdiction of the dispute. The Supreme Court of Minnesota affirmed the granting of injunctive relief. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, held, reversed, one Justice dissenting. Since an unfair labor practice has been alleged and petitioner is arguably a labor organization, state and federal courts must yield to the primary authority of the NLRB to determine whether it has jurisdiction of the controversy. Marine Eng\u27rs Beneficial Ass\u27n v. Interlake S.S. Co., 370 U.S. 173 (1962)

Labor Law--Federal Pre-emption--Scope of Arguable NLRB Jurisdiction

Picketing by petitioner interrupted the unloading of respondent\u27s cargo vessels. A state court granted respondent\u27s request for a permanent injunction against further picketing, despite petitioner\u27s contention that, since it was a labor organization within the meaning of section S(b) of the Labor Management Relations Act and respondent had alleged an unfair labor practice, the National Labor Relations Board had exclusive jurisdiction of the dispute. The Supreme Court of Minnesota affirmed the granting of injunctive relief. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, held, reversed, one Justice dissenting. Since an unfair labor practice has been alleged and petitioner is arguably a labor organization, state and federal courts must yield to the primary authority of the NLRB to determine whether it has jurisdiction of the controversy. Marine Eng\u27rs Beneficial Ass\u27n v. Interlake S.S. Co., 370 U.S. 173 (1962)