1. “Phillips in Favor of Tax Law Change,” Daily Oklahoman, April 6, 1939Google Scholar.

2. Oregon, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Michigan, plus the territory of Hawaii. See note 125 below.

3. Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101 (1930)Google Scholar; Goodwell v. Koch, 282 U.S. 118 (1930)Google Scholar; Hopkins v. Bacon, 282 U.S. 122 (1930)Google Scholar; Bender v. Pfaff, 282 U.S. 127 (1930)Google Scholar; Mim. 3853, X-1 Cumulative Bulletin (1931)Google Scholar. Technically California was allowed to split income in 1931. U.S. v. Robbins, 269 U.S. 315 (1926)Google Scholar; U.S. v. Malcolm, 282 U.S. 792 (1931)Google Scholar.

4. Couples in which each spouse earned roughly equal incomes were neither benefited nor harmed, except in rare circumstances. For example, see discussion in Willcox v. The Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co., 357 Pa. 581 (Pa. S.Ct., 1947), referenced below.

5. IRS, Statistics of Income Bulletin, Personal Exemptions and Individuals Income Tax Rates, Spring 2002, Publication 1136 (Revised 6–02), <http://www.irs.gov/pub/irssoi/02inpetr.pdf> (accessed July 1, 2008).

6. U.S. Treasury Department, Bureau of Internal Revenue, Statistics of Income 1939 (GPO, 1940), 6; U.S. Treasury Department, Bureau of Internal Revenue, Statistics of Income 1945 (GPO, 1951), 5.

7. For $1 million incomes, couples saved $23,921, but this was only 2.93 percent. Senate, Finance Committee, Revenue Act of 1948, 80th Cong., 2d sess., 1948, S. Rep. 1013, 23.

8. Costs could come in the form of increased federal tax rates to make up the lost revenue (but that would be spread across the entire country) and local confusion in administration.

9. A later paper will look at the federal government's response in 1948.

10. Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930); note 3. For further discussion of the cases, see below at pages 591–92.

11. Unlike with community property, there was no a priori guarantee that the government would recognize any particular common law device and none could transfer salary.

12. Allee, William Coit, “Community Property as Viewed by the Tax Practitioner,” Michigan State Bar Journal 26 (1947): 22Google Scholar. See also, McKenzie, Malcolm W., “Community Property as it Affects Titles,” Oklahoma Bar Association Journal 15 (1945): 973–80Google Scholar.

13. For example, between 1922 and 1932 there were over 100 community property cases in Washington. Mechem, Frank L., “Progress of Law in Washington Community property,” Washington Law Review 7 (1933): 367Google Scholar. See also, Resolution No. 1, Nebraska Law Review 27 (1947): 369Google Scholar; Mechem, Frank L., “Creditors' Rights in Community Property,” Washington Law Review 11 (1936): 80–90Google Scholar; Dodd, William H., “Community Property in Pennsylvania,” Dickinson Law Review 52 (1947): 34–38Google Scholar; Ricketts, Lewis R., “The Nebraska Community Property Law,” Nebraska Law Review 27 (1947): 215Google Scholar; Morton, Perry W., “The Nebraska Community Property Law,” Nebraska Law Review 27 (1947): 229Google Scholar; Garrett, Tom W., “Conveyance Under the Community Property Law,” Oklahoma Bar Association Journal 18 (1947): 1292–97Google Scholar; Trice, A. W., “Community Property Law,” Oklahoma Bar Association Journal 16 (1945): 763–72Google Scholar.

14. Jones, Carolyn C., “Split Income and Separate Spheres: Tax Law and Gender Roles in the 1940s,” Law and History Review 6 (1988): 270CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 274; Sturiale, Jennifer E., “The Passage of Community Property Laws, 1939–1947: Was ‘More than Money’ Involved?” Michigan Journal of Gender and Law 11 (2005): 213–52Google Scholar; Gann, Pamela B., “Abandoning Marital Status as a Factor in Allocating Income Tax Burdens,” Texas Law Review 59 (1980): 1–69Google Scholar; Blumberg, Grace, “Sexism in the Code: A Comparative Study of Income Taxation of Working Wives and Mothers,” Buffalo Law Review 21 (1972): 49–98Google Scholar.

15. Kessler-Harris, Alice, In Pursuit of Equity: Women, Men, and the Quest for Economic Citizenship in 20th Century America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 179Google Scholar. This discounts the simple truth that this model reflected reality for the majority of American families at the time and arguably reinforced the status quo by rewarding with the greatest tax savings the family with one wage earner. While McCaffery focuses on tax motivations, he also does not explain why some states changed and others did not. McCaffery, Edward J., Taking Women (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This begins to tell that story.

16. One recent exception is Post, Robert, “Federalism, Positive Law, and the Emergence of the American Administrative State: Prohibition in the Taft Court Era,” William and Mary Law Review 48 (2006): 1–183Google Scholar.

17. See, for example, Nicholson-Crotty, Sean, Theobald, Nick A., and Wood, B. Dan, “Fiscal Federalism and Budgetary Tradeoffs in the American States,” Political Research Quarterly 59 (2006): 313–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stark, Kirk J., “Fiscal Federalism and Tax Progressivity: Should the Federal Income Tax Encourage State and Local Redistribution?” U.C.L.A. Law Review 51 (2004): 1389–1435Google Scholar. But see Purcell, Edward A. Jr, “Evolving Understanding of American Federalism: Some Shifting Parameters,” New York Law School Law Review 50 (2005): 635–98Google Scholar; Amar, Akhil Reed, “Of Sovereignty and Federalism,” Yale Law Journal 96 (1987): 1425–1520CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18. See note 96. The absolute amount of a taxpayer's state and federal tax obligations would not necessarily decline significantly. By reducing residents' federal income tax burdens, taxpayers would have smaller deductions for federal taxes paid when filing state income tax returns, making more income subject to taxation by the state. On the other hand, taxpayers gain vis-à-vis states that adopted federal rules governing taxation, including income-splitting.

19. Stark, , “Fiscal Federalism,” 1389Google Scholar. For more on the role of antitax public feeling as a fiscal constraint on the ability to build the federal state, see Zelizer, Julian E., “The Uneasy Relationship: Democracy, Taxation, and State Building Since the New Deal,” in The Democratic Experiment, ed. Jacobs, Meg and others, 276–300 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003)Google Scholar; Kornhauser, Marjorie E., “Legitimacy and the Right of Revolution: The Role of Tax Protests and Anti-Tax Rhetoric in America,” Buffalo Law Review 50 (2002): 819–930Google Scholar; Adams, Charles, Those Dirty Rotten Taxes: The Tax Revolts that Built America (New York: Freedom Press, 1998)Google Scholar.

20. Basch, Norma, In the Eyes of the Law: Women, Marriage, and Property in Nineteenth-Century New York (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Rabkin, Peggy A., Fathers to Daughters: The Legal Foundations of Female Emancipation (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Siegel, Reva B., “The Modernization of Marital Status Law: Adjudicating Wives' Rights to Earnings, 1860–1930,” Georgetown Law Journal 82 (1994): 2127–57Google Scholar.

21. In McGuire v. McGuire, 175 Neb. 226 (1953), for example, Nebraska's supreme court refused to order a husband to supply indoor plumbing or clothing for his wife, although he was worth almost $200,000. See, Hartog, Hendrik, Man and Wife in America: A History (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000), 2–6Google Scholar.

22. For a period discussion of the community property system, see DeFuniak, William Q., Principles of Community Property (Chicago: Callahan and Company, 1943), §§37–53;Google ScholarMcKay, George, A Treatise on the Law of Community Property (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1925)Google Scholar; Evans, Alvin E., “Ownership of Community Property,” Harvard Law Review 35 (1921): 47–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23. Even lawyers in traditional community property states disagreed over the value of the wife's interest. See, for example, Daggett, Harriet S., “The Modern Problem of the Nature of the Wife's Interest in Community Property—A Comparative Study,” California Law Review 19 (1931): 567–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sebree, J. Emmett, “Federal Taxation of Community Property,” Texas Law Review 12 (1934): 273–302Google Scholar; DeFuniak, , “Review in Brief,” 63–74Google Scholar; Magill, Roswell, “The Federal Income Tax on the Family,” Texas Law Review 20 (1941): 150–64Google Scholar; Ray, George E., “Proposed Changes in Federal Taxation of Community Property: Income Tax,” California Law Review 30 (1941): 404Google Scholar. The leading scholar of community property argued in 1925 that community property systems actually worked as a conservative influence by discouraging women from leaving the home and earning separate wages. McKay, , Treatise on the Law, 65Google Scholar.

24. Only rather late did community property wives gain the right to control their separate property. Until 1972, no community property state allowed wives to manage community property equally with husbands. Binaman, Anne K., “The Impact of the Equal Rights Amendment on Married Women's Financial Individual Rights,” Pepperdine Law Review 3 (1975): 26, 28Google Scholar.

25. For example, see Daggett, Harriet Spiller, “Trends in Louisiana Law of the Family,” Tulane Law Review 9 (1934): 89Google Scholar; Moore, Ben L., “The Community Property System and the Economic Reconstruction of the Family Unit: Insolvent and Bankrupt,” Washington Law Review 11 (April 1936): 61–79Google Scholar; McKay, , Treatise on the Law, 65Google Scholar; Atman, George T., “Community Property and Joint Returns,” Taxes 19 (1941): 588–90Google Scholar, 612; Dodd, , “Community Property in Pennsylvania,” 24–5Google Scholar; Brown, Robert C., “Tax Problems Under the Pennsylvania Community Property Law,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review 9 (1947): 8Google Scholar.

26. Guy and Ella Earl entered an oral agreement in 1901, twelve years before the federal income tax took effect, likely as an estate-planning device. Cain, Patricia A., “The Story of Earl,” in Tax Stories: An In-Depth Look at Ten Leading Federal Income Tax Cases, ed. Caron, Paul L. (New York: Foundation Press, 2003), 285Google Scholar. See also, Petition before Board of Tax Appeals, 3, Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)Google Scholar.

27. For a good discussion of Lucas v. Earl, see Cain, , “Story of Earl,” 275–311Google Scholar; McCaffery, , Taxing Women, 37–45Google Scholar; “Appeals Income Tax Case,” N.Y. Times, February 12, 1930; “Pooling Income Decision Given,” L.A. Times, March 18, 1930; “Tax Brief Filed by Government,” Wall Street Journal, June 17, 1929; “Review Granted in Tax Case,” N.Y. Times, October 15, 1929.

28. Brief for Respondent, 11, Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)Google Scholar.

29. 281 U.S. 111, at 114–15.

30. See note 3 above.

31. Interestingly, the Grapes of Wrath was published the same year Oklahoma adopted the community property regime. “‘No Ad Valorem Tax’—Then What,” Tulsa Daily World, April 21, 1930; “Real Study of Taxation Essential,” Tulsa Daily World, April 11, 1930; “State ‘In Red’ Half Million,” Daily Oklahoman, October 19, 1930.

32. “Taxation,” Oklahoma State Bar Journal 4 (1933): 43–44Google Scholar.

33. During the 1930s, over one-third of the state's families had incomes between $500 and $1,500 a year, and in 1935 the median family income was only $1,160. However, only those families earning at least $2,500 a year were subject to federal income taxation. Bolin, Winifred D. Wandersee, “The Economics of Middle-Income Family Life: Working Women During the Great Depression,” Journal of American History 65 (June 1978): 62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34. Quoted in Ware, Susan, Holding Their Own: American Women in the 1930s (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1982), 3Google Scholar.

35. Manes, Sheila, “Pioneers and Survivors: Oklahoma's Landless Farmers,” in Oklahoma: New Views of the Forty-Sixth State, ed. Morgan, Anne Hodges and Morgan, H. Wayne (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1982), 129Google Scholar.

36. House Ways and Means Committee, Hearings on Revenue Revisions, 1947–48, 80th Cong, 1st Sess., 1947, 893Google Scholar(hereafter Hearings on Revenue Revisions).

37. “Tax Refugee Study is Set,” Daily Oklahoman, December 43, 1937Google Scholar.

38. “Analysis Shows State Loses Its Big Taxpayers,” Daily Oklahoman, February 4, 1940Google Scholar.

39. “Tax Burden Eased by Senate Action,” Tulsa World, April 28, 1939Google Scholar; Daggett, Harriett Spiller, “The Oklahoma Community Property Act,” Louisiana Law Review 2 (1940): 575–96Google Scholar; Campbell, Harry A. and Mosteller, L. Karlton, “Development Relating to the Oklahoma Community Property Act,” Oklahoma Bar Association Journal 13 (1942): 49–51Google Scholar; Labovitz, I.M., “The Community Property System, Its Relation to Income, Estate, and Inheritance Taxation,” Part I, Taxes 9 (1931): 290Google Scholar.

40. Oklahoma was closely associated geographically, commercially, and culturally with Texas, Louisiana, and New Mexico, each of which had the community property system, as did some of the state's local Native American tribes. Hale, Douglas, “The People of Oklahoma: Economics and Social Change,” in Oklahoma: New Views, 41Google Scholar.

41. “State Income is Six Million Short of 1938,” Daily Oklahoman, May 3, 1939Google Scholar; “Lack of Cash Darkens City,” Daily Oklahoman, May 14, 1939Google Scholar; “Reduction is Preferred to ‘No Pay’ Era,” Daily Oklahoman, April 28, 1930Google Scholar; “Audit Shows Fund For Pay Almost Gone,” Daily Oklahoman, April 4, 1930Google Scholar.

42. “High Income Theory Basis for Spending,” Daily Oklahoman, January 4, 1939Google Scholar; “U.S. Debt Due to Near Legal Limit in 1940,” Daily Oklahoman, January 6, 1939Google Scholar; “Pencils Fly on New Guess of Revenues,” Daily Oklahoman, January 28, 1939Google Scholar.

43. “Pencils Fly on New Guess of Revenues,” Daily Oklahoman, January 28, 1939Google Scholar; Humphries, George G., A Century to Remember: A Historical Perspective on the Oklahoma House of Representatives (Oklahoma City: The House, 2000), 45Google Scholar.

44. A taxpayers' group to study the state's economic program was established in 1939. Of its six proposed reforms, none involved the marital regime. “Six Reforms Fixed as Goal of Tax Group,” Daily Oklahoman, February 10, 1939Google Scholar. See also, Elmer Thomas to Fred Carr, 22 July 1937, Folder 13, Box 33, Legislative, Elmer Thomas Collection, Carl Albert Center, University of Oklahoma, OK (hereafter Thomas Collection); Elmer Thomas to C. T. Egerton, 24 July 1937, Folder 13, Box 33, Legislative, Thomas Collection; Campbell, and Mosteller, , “Oklahoma Community Property Act,” 49Google Scholar.

45. “Know Your Government Series No. 3, Comparisons of State Tax Systems,” Folder 20, Box 26, Gubernatorial Series, Robert S. Kerr Collection, Carl Albert Center Congressional Archives, University of Oklahoma, OK (hereafter Kerr Collection).

46. “Tax Burden Eased for Oklahomans,” Tulsa World, April 28, 1939Google Scholar.

47. Randolph, Roger S., “The Oklahoma Community Property Act of 1939,” Oklahoma State Bar Journal 10 (1940): 540–1Google Scholar. Throughout the period under review Oklahoma did not record the proceedings before the Oklahoma Tax Commission or the legislature.

48. See note 1 above. See also, Daggett, Harriet Spiller, “The Oklahoma Community Property Act: A Comparative Study,” Louisiana Law Review 2 (1939): 576Google Scholar; Trice, A.W., “Community Property in Oklahoma,” Southwestern Law Journal 4 (1950): 38–45Google Scholar.

49. Randolph, , “Oklahoma Community Property,” 542Google Scholar.

50. The bill originally contained an emergency provision, meaning that the bill would automatically be effective once signed, but the provision was struck in conference. Under the state's constitution at the time, without an emergency clause bills did not become effective for ninety days after the legislature adjourned, and in the interim a referendum petition could be lodged to suspend the effectiveness of the law until voted upon by the people.

51. See, for example, “Womanhood is Indorsed, But After Battle,” Daily Oklahoman, January 25, 1939Google Scholar; Johnson, Edith, “Hard Times and Birth Control,” Daily Oklahoman, October 3, 1930Google Scholar; Babson, Roger, “Women Flood the Job Market,” Daily Oklahoman, January 7, 1939Google Scholar. But see “Robert Kerr Recognizes Women's Economic Status,” Oklahoma Club Woman 11 (1936): 5Google Scholar; “Women and the New Order,” dated 1942, Folder 17, Box 1, Speeches, Kerr Collection.

52. Some original community property states allowed couples to elect out of community treatment as discussed below.

53. Hearings on Revenue Revisions, 893.

54. Once made, the election was dissolved only by the death of a spouse or by divorce.

55. Because wives were entitled to one-half of community estates upon the death of their husbands, while the law would not change the division of an intestate's property among heirs, it would reduce the amount of property subject to division. Until a husband's death, a wife without separate property had nothing but a barren, inchoate half-interest in the community which was in the absolute control of the husband to give, gamble, or gobble at his discretion and might be taken at divorce. “Tax Burden Eased for Oklahomans,” Tulsa World, April 28, 1939Google Scholar; HB 565, 1939, 2–1–3, Oklahoma State Archives, Oklahoma Department of Libraries, Oklahoma City, OK (hereafter OK State Archives).

56. Okla. Sess. Laws. 1939, c. 62, Art. 2 §§ 1–15, Okla. Stat. Ann. (Supp. 1939) tit. 32, §§ 51–65. For a detailed description of the various provisions of the law, see Daggett, , “Oklahoma Community Property Act,” 575–96Google Scholar; Winterer, E., “Mysteries and Delusions of Community Property,” State Bar Journal of California 12 (1937): 87–88Google Scholar; Altman, George T., “Community Property: Avoiding Avoidance by Adoption in the Revenue Act,” Taxes 16 (April 1938): 140Google Scholar; Altman, George T., “The Oklahoma Community Property Law,” Taxes 22 (June 1944): 261Google Scholar.

57. “Oklahoma League of Women Voters—Program of Work,” Folder 4, 2006.16, Box 12[H], 1930s, John Dunning Political Collection, Oklahoma Historical Society, Oklahoma City, OK (hereafter OK Historical Society); Young, Louise M., In the Public Interest: The League of Women Voters, 1920–1970 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1989), 113–17Google Scholar. There was no mention of this from the Oklahoma League of Women Voters or the national Women's Bureau report on the state. See, Mrs. William C. Carson to Miss Marguerite M. Wells, 5 September 1940; Grace Arnold to Mrs. William J. Carson, 23 September 1940, Joint Income Tax, Box 449, Discrimination Against Women, Part II, Biennial Files, 1920–1946, League of Women Voters, Library of Congress (hereinafter LWV Papers); Box 388, Oklahoma, 1939–1940, Part II, Biennial Files, 1920–1946, LWV Papers; Box 475, Oklahoma, 1944–1945 and Box 199, Oklahoma, Part III, Records, 1918–1964, LWV Papers.

58. Casey, Orben J., And Justice for All: The Legal Profession in Oklahoma, 1821–1989 (Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Heritage Society, 1989)Google Scholar; Trotter, Patsy, Leading the Way: A Look at Oklahoma's Pioneering Women Lawyers (Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Bar Association, 2003)Google Scholar; Bellamy, Lou Etta, “History of Women Lawyers' Club of Oklahoma,” Oklahoma State Bar Journal 9 (1939): 182Google Scholar. From the surviving copies of the Citator, the group's monthly magazine, there is no indication that the group either supported or opposed the bill.

59. “Mrs. Roberta Lawson Discusses Taxation,” Oklahoma Club Woman 12 (1937): 9Google Scholar.

60. Harlow, Victor E., “The End of Session,” Harlow's Weekly 51 (May 13, 1939): 2Google Scholar; Harlow, Victor E., “Killing the Goose,” Harlow's Weekly 51 (April 1, 1939): 3Google Scholar.

61. “New Community Property law Offers Chance to Cut Taxes,” Oklahoma: A Magazine of Business 23 (May 3, 1939): 1Google Scholar.

62. “Tax Cutting Property Law Now Operates in Oklahoma,” Oklahoma: A Magazine of Business 23 (August 17, 1939): 23Google Scholar.

63. Olds, Dwight A., “Bona Fide Purchaser Doctrine Should Be Applied to Community Property Dissolutions,” Oklahoma Bar Association Journal 16 (1945): 1845Google Scholar. See also, Randolph, , “Oklahoma Community Property,” 850–53Google Scholar.

64. “Taxation—Income Tax,” Columbia Law Review 44 (1944): 572Google Scholar. See also Buford, Paul N., “Community or Jointly Acquired Property,” Oklahoma State Bar Association Bar Journal 10 (1940): 957–59Google Scholar; Harsch, Alfred, “Control of Property Under the Oregon Community-Property Act,” Oregon Law Review 27 (1948): 247–73Google Scholar; Brown, , “Tax Problems,” 8Google Scholar.

65. Eagin, Frank and Eagin, Charles Everett, Community Property Law in Oklahoma (Tulsa: Mid-West Printing Co., 1940), 3Google Scholar.

66. Eagin, and Eagin, , Community Property Law, 206Google Scholar.

67. “U.S. Rules Out State Tax Law,” Daily Oklahoman, April 2, 1941Google Scholar.

68. Campbell, and Mosteller, , “Oklahoma Community Property Act,” 49–50Google Scholar.

69. See also note 18.

70. This was the median for families with both spouses present. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, Series G353–371 (GPO, 1975), 353Google Scholar.

71. 189 Okla. 475 (October 14, 1941).

72. Brief of Defendant in Error, filed Nov. 27, 1940, Harmon v. OK Tax Commission, No. 30016, OK State Archives (hereafter Harmon).

73. Brief of Plaintiff in Error, filed Oct. 23, 1940, 8, Harmon. This argument was included in Harmon's plea for a ruling on the Act's constitutionality. Request for ruling on supplemental brief, filed Jan. 22, 1941, Harmon.

74. Brief of Plaintiff in Error, filed Oct. 23, 1940, 30, Harmon.

75. Harmon v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 189 Okla. 475 (1941).

76. Wells, Anita, “Community Property,” 24 July 1941, 12Google Scholar; Ellis E. Manning to Mr. Wenchel, “Re: Oklahoma Community Property Law of 1939,” [n.d.]; Anita Wells to Roy Blough, “List of States Having Community Property Laws,” 6 November 1939; “Data from 1936 Community Property Returns with Net Income of $100,000 and Over,” 1 August -17 October 1939; “Suggestions for Study of Taxation of Community Property,” 10 September 1939; Anita Wells to Roy Blough, “Community Property Law in Oklahoma,” 29 August 1939, all in Box 54, Office of Tax Policy, RG 56, National Archives at College Park, MD. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue did not challenge the Act's constitutionality but did argue that this should not affect the taxability of the husband's income, arguing that it did not change the wife's interest. Brief for the Petitioner, Commissioner v. Harmon, Supreme Court Briefs, 4–5.

77. Harmon v. Commissioner, 1 T.C. 40 (1942). In a series of cases the Tax Court recognized the elective regime as effective for splitting income for federal income tax purposes. Charles L. Yancey, 1942 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 40 (1942)Google Scholar; L. W. Prunty, 1942 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 41; Armais Arutunoff v. Commissioner, 1942 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 42; Thomas A. Creekmore, 1942 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 71.

78. Commissioner v. Harmon, 139 F.2d 211 (10th Cir., 1943).

79. This excluded income derived from Pearl Harmon's separate property.

80. Brief for the Petitioner, Commissioner v. Harmon, Supreme Court Briefs, 6, 8.

81. Timons, Bascom, “State Loses Tax Battle,” Tulsa World, September 21, 1944Google Scholar.

82. 323 U.S. 44 (1944) (Douglas dissenting).

83. Commissioner v. Harmon, 323 U.S. at 47–8. This was in spite of the fact that original community property states, including California and Washington, allowed married couples to contract out of the community property system, discussed in detail in the Commissioner's brief. See Brief for the Petitioner, Commissioner v. Harmon, Supreme Court Briefs, 5–9.

84. Malcolm might also limit the use of Seaborn in same-sex marriage cases. The Internal Revenue Service concluded in an internal memorandum issued February 24, 2006, that Poe v. Seaborn does not apply to same-sex couples. CCA 200608038 at <www.natptax.com/2006caincomesplit.pdf> (accessed May 1, 2009). See, Kratzke, William P., “The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is Bad Tax Policy,” University of Memphis Law Review 36 (2005): 399–445Google Scholar; Cain, Patricia A., “Federal Tax Consequences of Civil Unions,” Capital University Law Review 30 (2002): 387–408Google Scholar; Seto, Theodore P., “The Unintended Tax Advantages of Gay Marriage,” Washington and Lee Law Review 65 (2008): 1529–92Google Scholar.

85. Brief for the Petitioner, , Commissioner v. Harmon, Supreme Court Briefs, 22–6Google Scholar.

86. “The Treasury had consistently ruled that the Revenue Act applied to the property systems of those States as it found them and consequently husband and wife were entitled each to return one half the community income. The Congress was fully conversant of these rulings and the practice thereunder, was asked to alter the provisions of later revenue acts to change the incidence of the tax, and refused to do so.” Commissioner v. Harmon, 323 U.S. at 46–47.

87. Ibid., at 53; Brief for the Petitioner, , Commissioner v. Harmon, Supreme Court Briefs, 12–14Google Scholar.

88. “Oklahoma Man and Wife Can't Split Income Tax, Court Rules,” Daily Oklahoman, November 21, 1944Google Scholar; “Tax Decision A Severe Blow to Oklahoma,” Tulsa World, November 22, 1944Google Scholar; Timons, Bascom, “State Loses Tax Battled,” Tulsa World, November 21, 1944Google Scholar. No one discussed the implications of its continuing to operate on previously electing couples.

89. “Oklahoma Man and Wife”; “Tax Decision A Severe Blow.”

90. Petition of Respondent for rehearing, Commissioner v. Harmon, Supreme Court Briefs, 2.

91. “Little Hope for Tax Law,” Tulsa World, November 22, 1944Google Scholar. People who made the 1939 election and split their income owed what they would have paid for the previous five years plus interest from March 15, 1940. The sum due was estimated at $10 to $12 million.

92. “Kerr Wants Any Tax Cut Equalized,” Daily Oklahoman, November 22, 1944Google Scholar.

93. Park, Ray, “State Tax Unit Raps Research Groups' Totals,” Daily Oklahoman, January 28, 1945Google Scholar.

94. “Little Hope for Tax Law,” Tulsa World, November 22, 1944Google Scholar. Even in this political environment, however, Governor Kerr considered calling a special session of the legislature.

95. “Business Changes in Oklahoma,” Oklahoma Business Bulletin 10 (1944): 6Google Scholar; “Tax Collections,” Oklahoma Business Bulletin 11 (1945): 1Google Scholar; “Legislature Awaits Kerr's Suggestions on School Finance, Tax Cut Actions,” Daily Oklahoman, January 5, 1945Google Scholar.

96. “On the other hand, in those states which, by inheritance of Spanish law, have always had a legal community property system, which vests in each spouse one half of the community income as it accrues, each is entitled to return one half of the income as the basis of federal income tax.” Commissioner v. Harmon, 323 U.S. at 46 (emphasis added). “New Community Property Law for Oklahoma,” 25 January 1945, Folder 7, Box 2, Printed Material, Kerr Collection.

97. Trice compared the two statutes and found differences. Trice, , “Community Property Law,” 763Google Scholar.

It is the opinion of this author that the differences he identified were not terribly significant.

98. Ibid.

99. McKenzie, “Community Property”; Hamilton, Wm. S., “Oklahoma Community Property Law as it Affects Operation and Management of Savings and Loan Associations,” Oklahoma Bar Association Journal 16 (1945): 1077Google Scholar; Ellifrit, Oron S., “Joint Tenancy and the Community Property Law,” Oklahoma Bar Association Journal 16 (1945): 1101–4Google Scholar; “Necessary Showing of Facts in Conveyance of Real Estate Under Oklahoma Community Property Law,” Oklahoma Bar Association Journal 16 (1945): 1263Google Scholar; Trice, A.W., “Conveyances Under the Community Property Act,” Oklahoma Bar Association Journal 16 (1945):1435Google Scholar; Evans, R. Rhys, “The Community Property Act of 1945 and its Effect on the Oil and Gas Industry,” Oklahoma Bar Association Journal 16 (1945): 1606–13Google Scholar; Olds, , “Bona Fide Purchaser,” 1843–7Google Scholar; Foster, Rayburn L., “Probating a Community Property Estate,” Oklahoma Bar Association Journal 17 (1946): 664–71Google Scholar; Bowman, Byrne A., “Taxability of Capital Gains on Separate Property,” Oklahoma Bar Association Journal 1 (1946): 823–32Google Scholar.

100. See note 12.

101. 101. “Kerr to Check New Tax Law,” Daily Oklahoman, April 20, 1945Google Scholar; “Kerr Approves 3 Major Bills,” Daily Oklahoman, April 29, 1945Google Scholar.

102. Folder 1945, H.B. 444, 2.1.3, OK State Archives.

103. L.D. Melton to Robert S. Kerr, 27 March 1945, Folder 27, Box 14, Gubernatorial Series, Kerr Collection.

104. H.B. 444 was amended in committee to address nontax matters. “Property Bill and Tax Law Stymie House,” Daily Oklahoman, April 24, 1945Google Scholar; Folder 1945, H.B. 444, 2.1.3, OK State Archives.

105. “U.S. Tax Collector Eyes State Laws,” Daily Oklahoman, June 3, 1945Google Scholar. Oklahoma did not record debates and reports were not made for this bill.

106. For example, see “Kerr asks Community Property Law to Aid Large Taxpayers,” Daily Oklahoman, January 11, 1945Google Scholar; “Tax Questions Now Hinge On Avoiding Boost,” Daily Oklahoman, January 12, 1945Google Scholar; “Session Quiet as Legislators, Governor Spar,” Daily Oklahoman, January 13, 1945Google Scholar.

107. “Little Hope for Tax Law,” Tulsa World, September 22, 1944Google Scholar.

108. “State of the State,” January 12, 1943Google Scholar, at <http://www.odl.state.ok.us/oar/governors/addresses/kerr1943.pdf> (accessed May 1, 2009).

109. “State of the State,” January 2, 1945Google Scholar, at <http://www.odl.state.ok.us/oar/governors/addresses/kerr1945.pdf> (accessed May 1, 2009); Gibson, Arrell Morgan, Oklahoma: A History of Five Centuries, 2nd ed. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1981), 231Google Scholar.

110. “Kerr Asks Community Property Law to Aid Large Taxpayers,” Daily Oklahoman, January 11, 1945Google Scholar.

111. “State Senate Action Hits U.S. Income Tax Discriminations,” Daily Oklahoman, March 7, 1945Google Scholar.

112. “Tax, Oil Laws Due to Escape Vote of People,” Daily Oklahoman, June 13, 1945Google Scholar.

113. 32 Okla. Stat. Ann. §§66–82 (Supp. 1945). “Legislature Finished, Mass of Bills Up for Final Decision by Governor,” Daily Oklahoman, April 28, 1945Google Scholar; “Kerr Approves 3 Major Bills,” Daily Oklahoman, April 29, 1945Google Scholar. The 1945 statute repealed the 1939 Act, at least prospectively, and tried to extend retroactive tax benefits to previously electing couples. It is probable the repeal did not affect the agreement between electing spouses. Trice, A. W., “Some Constitutional Questions on Repeal of the Community Property Act,” Oklahoma Bar Association Journal 20 (1949): 1815Google Scholar. Trice also argued that the 1949 repeal, discussed below, did not affect rights arising from an election under the 1939 Act.

114. See Jones, Carolyn C., “Mass-based Income Taxation: Creating a Taxpaying Culture, 1940–1952,” in Funding the Modern American State, 1941–1995: The Rise and Fall of the Era of Easy Finance, ed. Elliot Brownlee, W., 107–47 (New York: Woodrow Wilson Center Press / Cambridge University Press, 1996)Google Scholar; Leff, Mark, “The Politics of Sacrifice on the American Homefront During World War II,” Journal of American History 77 (1991): 1296–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kennedy, David M., Freedom from Fear (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 275–6Google Scholar; Brinkley, David, Washington Goes to War (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1988), 125–26Google Scholar, 202; Higgs, Robert, Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 198Google Scholar.

115. Norman Hirschfield to Kerr, 3 January 1946, Folder 27, Box 14, Gubernatorial Series, Kerr Collection.

116. H.W. Wright to Kerr, 4 October 1945, Folder 27, Box 14, Gubernatorial Series, Kerr Collection.

117. H.W. Wright to Kerr, 11 October 1945, Folder 27, Box 14, Gubernatorial Series, Kerr Collection.

118. Young, , In the Public Interest, 113–17Google Scholar; “The Record: Summary of Action taken under Active List,” April 1944–April 1946Google Scholar, League of Women Voters Papers on film, II. B.1 0145–48. See also Resolutions Adopted at the Fiftieth Annual Meeting of the Oklahoma State Federation of Women's Clubs, 22 April 1948, Box 3, Oklahoma State Federation of Women's Club, OK Historical Society. The National Woman's Party studied the community property system at the national level but did not formulate a coherent policy on the issue. Mrs. Harvey W. Wiley to Walter F. George, 26 August 1941, telegram, reprinted in Hearings on Revenue Revisions, 917; Burnita Shelton Matthews, “The Denial of Justice to Women—A Summary of Discriminations,” House Ways and Means Committee, Hearings on Revenue Revision of 1942, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1942, 1475–76. There are no records for this period for the Oklahoma branch of the National Woman's Party.

119. For a discussion of the Oklahoma Association of Women Lawyers, see note 58 above. “Association Opposes Anti-Busing Proposal, Value Added Tax,” American Association of University Women Journal (May 1972): 1Google Scholar.

120. Brief in Support of Application for Recognition of the Oklahoma Community Property Law of 1945,” Folder 27, Box 14, Gubernatorial Series, Collection, Kerr; “Kerr Asks U.S. Sanctions for New Tax Laws,” Daily Oklahoman, 5 June 6, 1945Google Scholar.

121. I.T. 3782, 1 Cumulative Bulletin (1946): 84.

122. (emphasis in original) “Report to the People,” 23 February 1946, Folder 25, Box 2, Speech, Kerr Collection.

123. “Annual Saving of $25 Million is Due Citizens,” Daily Oklahoman, December 21, 1945Google Scholar; “Community Property Decision Has Even Tax Men Guessing,” Daily Oklahoman, December 23, 1945Google Scholar.

124. Not much evidence of the exact cost exists, particularly because everyone but wives had an economic incentive to minimize any actual change produced by the law. Nonetheless, cases slowly moved through the Oklahoma court system. See Bagsby v. Bagsby, 184 Okla. 627 (1939)Google Scholar; Greer v. Greer, 194 Okla. 181 (1944)Google Scholar; Essex v. Washington, 198 Okla. 145 (1946)Google Scholar; In re Bass Estate, 200 Okla. 14 (1947)Google Scholar; Harris Trust and Savings Bank v. Burlingame, 200 Okla. 29 (1948)Google Scholar; Draughton v. Wright, 200 Okla. 198 (1948)Google Scholar; Bowman v. Bowman, 201 Okla. 384 (1949)Google Scholar; In re Crane Estate, 201 Okla. 354 (1949)Google Scholar; Swisher v. Clark, 202 Okla. 25 (1949)Google Scholar; Mangum v. Mangum, 202 Okla. 95 (1949)Google Scholar; Banta v. Banta, 202 Okla. 86 (1949)Google Scholar; Champion v. Champion, 203 Okla. 105 (1950)Google Scholar; Loverlady v. Loughridge, 20 Okla. 186 (1951)Google Scholar; Crane v. Howard, 206 Okla. 278 (1951)Google Scholar; Reding v. Reding, 206 Okla. 565 (1952)Google Scholar; Davis Estate v. OK Tax Commission, 206 Okla. 644 (1952)Google Scholar; Swanda v. Swanda, 207 Okla. 186 (1952)Google Scholar; Hiskett v. Wells, 351 P.2d 300 (1959)Google Scholar; Stinson v. Sherman, 405 P.2d 172 (1965)Google Scholar; Catron v. First National Bank, 434 P.2d 263 (1967)Google Scholar.

125. See note 121; Or. Laws 1943, c. 440; Or. Laws 1945, c. 270; Or. Laws 1947, c. 525; Michigan Law 1947, Pub. Act 317; Nebraska 1947, chapter 156; Oregon, Laws of 1947, ch. 525; Pennsylvania, Act. No. 550, 1947 session; Hawaii Revised Laws, 1945, ch. 301A; “Oregon Tax Balm,” Newsweek, June 21, 1943Google Scholar; Moshofsky, William J., “Repeal of the Community-Property Law,” Oregon Law Review 28 (1948): 311Google Scholar. For a good comparison of the laws, see DeFuniak, William Q., “The New Community Property Jurisdictions,” Tulane Law Review 22 (1947): [264Google Scholar–72.

126. For example, see “Magill Urges Cut in Federal Budget,” N.Y. Times, February 6, 1947Google Scholar; “A Special Summary and Forecast of Federal and State Tax Developments,” Wall Street Journal, January 8, 1947Google Scholar; “The Federal Tax Cut,” Hartford Courant, May 30, 1947Google Scholar; “Tax, Tax, and Spend,” L.A. Times, August 22, 1947Google Scholar; “High Taxes Will Last Until '48,” Wall Street Journal, August 5, 1946Google Scholar.

127. However, for the limited constraint that this patriotism might have actually imposed, see above at note 114.

128. Student Editorial Board, “The Community Property System,” Boston University Law Review 27 (1947): 443–59Google Scholar; Polisher, Edward N., “The Pennsylvania Community Property Statute: Its Federal Income, Gift and Estate Tax Implications,” Dickinson Law Review 52 (1947): 1–23Google Scholar; Fleming, Roscoe, “Other States Seeking to Tap Oklahoma's Pipeline into Treasury,” N.Y. Times, March 16, 1947Google Scholar; “Upper-Bracket Couples Can Hope for Tax Cuts in Split-Income Bill,” Wall Street Journal, October 18, 1947Google Scholar; “Community Dilemma,” Newsweek, October 13, 1947Google Scholar; “Community Law Opposed by Governor,” Hartford Courant, November 22, 1947Google Scholar; Bright, Myron H., “Community Property,” Bar Brief 24 (1948): 65Google Scholar. Some states, like Virginia, had already rejected a statute. “Va. Senate Eases Law on Ballots,” Washington Post, February 3, 1948Google Scholar.

129. Concurrent Resolution introduced by Hugo S. Sims, Jr., to House of Representatives, 8 January 1948, Milbank Legislative Files (MSS-0085–001), Folder 69.11, Special Collections, College of Charleston, Charleston, SC.

130. Cobble, Dorothy Sue, Other Women's Movement (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 60–66Google Scholar, 71–77; Kessler-Harris, , Pursuit of Equity, 205Google Scholar; Storrs, Landon R.Y., Civilizing Capitalism: The National Consumers' League, Women's Activism, and Labor Standards in the New Deal Era (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000), 229–46Google Scholar; Rosenberg, Rosalind, Divided Lives: American Women in the Twentieth Century (New York: Hill and Wang, 1992), 138–58Google Scholar; Hartmann, Susan, The Home Front and Beyond: American Women in the 1940s (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1982), 20, 60–7Google Scholar.

131. While 3.25 million women either quit or were fired between September 1945 and November 1946, nearly 2.75 million women gained new jobs, making the net decline of female employment about 600,000 women. Hartmann, , Home Front, 92–95Google Scholar, 108; Rosenberg, , Divided Lives, 127–28, 134–36Google Scholar.

132. The median income for all women rose 38 percent during the war. Hartmann, , Home Front, at 92–95, 108Google Scholar; Anderson, , Wartime Women, 60, 161–64Google Scholar.

133. Income-splitting only benefited families with over $3,300 in annual income when $3,031 was the median family income. Most of its tax benefits went to 4 percent of taxpayers with incomes of more than $5,000. Bureau of Census, Historical Statistics, Series G179–188, 296; “The Modern Income Tax,” Fortune, December 1948Google Scholar; “Community-Property Tangles,” U.S. News and World Report, October 17, 1947Google Scholar; “Spread of Proposed Tax Cut,” U.S. News and World Report, January 24, 1947Google Scholar.

134. For good descriptions of Pennsylvania's economic and political development in this period, see Beers, Paul B., Pennsylvania Politics Yesterday and Today: The Tolerable Accommodation (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1980), 118–66Google Scholar; Sklein, Philip S. and Hoogenboon, Ari, A History of Pennsylvania, 2nd ed. (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1980), 472–73Google Scholar.

135. Act No. 159 (May 31, 1947); Act No. 160 (May 31, 1947); Act No. 543 (July 7, 1947); Act No. 544 (July 7, 1947).

136. Earlier community property bills S. B. No. 287 and S.B. No. 377, died in committee. H.B. 615 was introduced on April 21, 1947. The Pennsylvania legislature met every two years and did not consider a community property statute in 1945.

137. Press Release, 9 July 1947, Folder 1, “Senate Bill 615,” Box 11, Legislative Files, GM 1498, James H. Duff Papers, MG 190, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg, PA (hereafter Duff Papers).

138. There are four folders of letters both for and against the community property bill, most dated between June 25 and July 7, 1947. Box 11, Legislative Files, GM 1498, Duff Papers.

139. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Legislative Journal, vol. 30 (1947), 3224–29Google Scholar, 5561–71 (hereafter Legislative Journal).

140. Duff, and presumably other Republicans, received countless angry letters from Republican constituents on the rising levels of state taxation. See Folder “Taxes—Correspondence, Dec. 1947–June 1948,” Box 12, Legislative File, 1947–1949, GM 1499, Duff Papers.

141. Legislative Journal, 3227.

142. Ibid.

143. The Republican Philadelphia Inquirer, referring to the bill as a “tax bill,” published as a headline “Truman Veto Upheld By 2 Votes; State Bill Cuts Taxes for Couples,” June 18, 1947. The paper changed its description to the “community property law” once the Act was declared unconstitutional by the state supreme court. “Council Ready to Boost Wage Tax—Community Property Law Voided,” Philadelphia Inquirer, November 27, 1947Google Scholar.

144. Sorg, Herbert P., Legislative Journal, 5571Google Scholar.

145. Press Release, Duffs Papers.

146. Legislative Journal, 3226, 5565. Moreover, this savings would benefit only a limited portion of Pennsylvania's married citizens. Ibid., at 3227–28, 5565.

147. Ibid., at 3227, 5565.

148. Hiram G. Andrews, ibid., at 5566. See also ibid., at 3228, 5565.

149. Ibid., at 3226–27. But see ibid., at 3327.

150. For example Fisher, C. Edmund, “Community Property Bill Lists Some Exceptions,” Pittsburgh Post Gazette, June 19, 1947Google Scholar; “Community Property Veto is Urged,” Pittsburgh Post Gazette, May 27, 1947Google Scholar.

151. Legislative Journal, 5564–66, 5568–69. Earlier in 1947 the Pennsylvania legislature had completed a two-year project revising its intestacy laws, granting less property and fewer rights to widows than the community property statute would provide.

152. On the other hand, some worried that the bill might destroy residents' ability to form tenancies by the entirety. Legislative Journal, 5563, 5565, 5568.

153. “Adjourn Assembly,” Harrisburg Patriot, June 18, 1947Google Scholar.

154. Legislative Journal, 5567. The general unease with the speed of its passage was shared by most of the legal associations of Pennsylvania, even if many lawyers supported the bill personally. See “Duff Hints He Will Sign Couples' Split-Tax Bill,” Philadelphia Inquirer, June 28, 1947Google Scholar; Philadelphia Bar Association to Duff, 28 June 1947, Folder “Senate Bill 615,” Box 11, Legislative File, GM 1498, Duff Papers; Goodrich, Herbert F. and Coleman, William T. Jr, “Pennsylvania Marital Communities and Common Law Neighbors,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 96 (1947): 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Latta, Cuthbert H. and Gemmill, Kenneth W., “Observations of Some Pennsylvania Community Property Problems,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 96 (1947): 20–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

155. Legislative Journal, 3152.

156. Republicans who did not support the community property measure were either concerned about the bill's impact on inheritance rights or did not feel that they understood the bill. Ibid., at 5566, 5570.

157. “Duff Hints He Will Sigh Couples' Split-Tax Bill,” Philadelphia Inquirer, June 28, 1947Google Scholar; “Duff Weighing Community Property Bill,” Pittsburgh Post Gazette, June 28, 1947Google Scholar.

158. On July 7, 1947, Duff signed S.B. 615, effective September 1, 1947. Pa. Laws 1947, Act. No. 550. For a discussion, see Polisher, Edward N., “The Pennsylvania Community Property Statute: Its Federal Income, Gift, and Estate Tax Implications,” Dickinson Law Review 52 (1947): 1–23Google Scholar; Booser, James H., “Half for the Better Half—The Pennsylvania Community Property Law,” Dickinson Law Review 52 (1947): 110–26Google Scholar.

159. Press Release, Duff Papers.

160. I.T. 3870, Cumulative Bulletin 2 (1947): 57Google Scholar; I.T. 3879, Cumulative Bulletin 2 (1947): 59Google Scholar. As a result of Willcox, discussed below, the rulings were revoked. I.T. 3884, Cumulative Bulletin 1 (1948): 52Google Scholar.

161. 357 Pa. 581 (Pa. S.Ct., 1947).

162. See Brief for Plaintiff, 10; Brief of Amicus Curiae from Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, 15; Brief of Mary F. W. Lewis, 13, each in Willcox v. Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co., Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Supreme Court Paper Books, 357 Pa. 572–602 (1947) (hereafter Supreme Court Paper Books). But see, Brief of Amicus Curiae from Lentz, Bernard V.Cushmore, C. Laurence, Lord, John W. Jr, White, Thomas Raeburn, Supreme Court Paper Books, 4, 20–1Google Scholar. Its appendix listed tax minimization as the purpose. Supreme Court Paper Books, 3a-4a.

163. Brief for the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 6, Supreme Court Paper Books.

164. Brief for Plaintiff, 21, Supreme Court Paper Books; Brief for the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 3, Supreme Court Paper Books. The other briefs submitted to the court refrained from taking a stand on this issue.

165. Willcox v. Pennsylvania Mutual, 55 A.2d, at 526–27.

166. This would only necessarily affect retroactive changes. For property yet to be acquired by a married couple, the husband had no vested rights.

167. The court was swayed because the husband exercised complete control over the community property; his personal creditors could reach community property held in his name; and a wife was statutorily prevented from suing her husband for illegal use of the community except in a proceeding for divorce or to protect or recover her separate property. Sturiale argues that the court's concern about wives' interests dictated its decision, but although the court argued in terms of the rights wives possessed, it did not take any steps to enlarge those rights. See Sturiale, , “Passage of Community Property Laws,” 250–52Google Scholar.

168. By this time, it was publicly known that Representative Harold Knutson (R-MN) had guaranteed Senator Harry F. Byrd (D-VA) that Knutson would introduce an income-splitting bill in 1948 in return for support on tax reduction. “GOP Promises to back Split Income Plan to Win Tax Cut Support,” Philadelphia Inquirer, July 7, 1947Google Scholar.

169. Also unknown is whether, if Congress had reduced taxes across-the-board as Knutson originally proposed, states would have still adopted community property regimes.

170. Democrats urged the adoption of a community property law. See, “Community Property,” Wall Street Journal, September 25, 1947Google Scholar; “Community Property,” N.Y. Times, October 6, 1947Google Scholar; “State Asks Easing of Couples' Taxes,” N.Y. Times, December 14, 1947Google Scholar.

171. Chapman, Alger B., A Report on the Advisability of Adopting a Community Property Law in New York State (New York, 1947)Google Scholar. The report contained no discussion of the impact the law would have on New York women or families.

172. “State Asks Easing of Couples' Taxes,” N.Y. Times, December 14, 1947Google Scholar. See also “Democrats Speed Reply to Dewey,” N.Y. Times, December 16, 1947Google Scholar.

173. It proved difficult for opponents to bring cases quickly. A declaratory judgment seeking to declare Nebraska's community property act unconstitutional was dismissed because of lack of proper parties and justiciable issues. Miller v. Stolinski, 149 Neb. 679 (1948)Google Scholar. The Oklahoma state supreme court in Swanda v. Swanda, 207 Okla. 186 (1952)Google Scholar, distinguished the Pennsylvania statute. See also Bulgo v. Bulgo, 41 Haw. 578 (1957)Google Scholar.

174. See notes 12, 13, 23, 99, and 124.

175. Treasury Department, “The Tax Treatment of Family Income,” reprinted in Hearings on Revenue Revisions, 859–63.

176. Gosnell, Cullen B. and Holland, Lynwood M., State and Local Government in the United States (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1951), 247–51Google Scholar.

177. Revenue Act of 1948, Pub. L. No. 471, 62 Stat. 110, 111–12 (1948); House Ways and Means Committee, Individual Income Tax Reduction Act of 1947, 80th Cong., 1st sess., 1947, H. Rep. 180, 7.

178. State property law continued to govern the determination of property ownership and many other questions of federal taxation.

179. Okla. H.B. 13, 1949; Neb. Laws 1949, c. 129, § 6; Mich. Public Act No. 39, May 10, 1948; Ore. Laws 1949, c. 349. The repeal of community property statutes did raise legal concerns for newly created community property. See Trice, , “Community Property,” 38–45Google Scholar; Trice, , “Constitutional Questions,” 1812–18Google Scholar; Cudlip, William B., “Repeal of Michigan Community Property Act,” Michigan State Bar Journal 27 (1948): 14Google Scholar; Woodruff, W. Preston, “The Effect of the Act Repealing the Community Property Law…and Suggested Procedure Thereunder,” Oklahoma Bar Association Journal 21 (1950): 84–94Google Scholar; Note, “Epilogue to the Community Property Scramble: Problems of Repeal,” Columbia Law Review 50 (1950): 332–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

180. “Tax Questions Still Come In; Jones Replies,” Daily Oklahoman, January 12, 1948Google Scholar; “If So, Let's Repeal It,” Daily Oklahoman, December 7, 1947Google Scholar.

181. Cudlip, , “Repeal of Michigan Community Property Act,” 14Google Scholar.

182. Thompson, Joe B., Gray, Early Q., and Wallace, W.R. Jr, “The Constitutionality and Effect of the Repeal of the Community Property Law,” Oklahoma Bar Association Journal 21 (1950): 80Google Scholar.

183. To appease attorneys who were concerned about the technicalities of repeal, the Judiciary Committee added a provision providing for the recording of then-existing community property and a statute of limitation after which all community property would be deemed owned by the person in whose name title rested. State Legislative Council, Quarterly Meeting, November 22–23, 1948, Folder 19–4, Box 19, Record Group 8–M-1, Governor's Office Records, OK State Archives; Okla. Laws 1949, c. 229, § 2, renumbered from Title 32, § 83 [32–83] by Okla. Laws 1989, c. 333, § 2. eff. November 1, 1989.

184. “Don't Be Hasty,” Daily Oklahoman, January 27, 1949Google Scholar.

185. L.D. Melton to Turner, 10 January 1948, Folder 2–10, Box 2, Record Group 8–M-2, Governor's Office Records, OK State Archives.

186. “Repeal of Joint Property Law Up to Turner,” Daily Oklahoman, May 27, 1949Google Scholar.

187. “Public Hearing on Community Tax Law Called,” Daily Oklahoman, January 23, 1949Google Scholar.

188. Steve Stahl, 22 March 1949, Folder 53, Box 2, General, Carl Albert Collection, Carl Albert Center.

189. “State Taxpayers Turn in Record,” Daily Oklahoman, March 17, 1949Google Scholar; “Repeal of Joint Property Law Up to Turner,” Daily Oklahoman, May 27, 1949Google Scholar. In his inaugural address in 1947, he stated, “The community property law of 1945 is, in effect, a tax measure and a good one.” Inaugural Address, 13 January 1947, Folder 4–2, Box 4, Record Group 8–M-6, Governor's Office Records, OK State Archives.

190. Report to the People, 6 June 1949, Box 1, Folder 1–3, Record Group 8–M-6, Governor's Office Records, OK State Archives. Turner mentioned the community property regime earlier in 1947 when he pointed out it enabled married couples to save federal income taxes. oblige. Report to the People, 7 August 1947, Folder 2–7, Box 2, Record Group 8–M-6, Governor's Office Records, OK State Archives.