### Understanding the Significance of Lucas v. Earl and Helvering v. HorstThis content explains the Supreme Court’s rulings in significant tax cases: **Lucas v. Earl** and **Helvering v. Horst**. These rulings determined how income from labor and property should be taxed. Below are the options explaining these cases' significance.1. **Option A**: - *Lucas v. Earl*: The Supreme Court decided that earnings from labor are taxed to the person who performs the services rather than the person who receives the income. - *Helvering v. Horst*: The Court held that income from property is taxed to the person who owns the property rather than the recipient of the income. One cannot assign income by arranging to have payment made to another person.2. **Option B**: - *Lucas v. Earl*: It held that income from property is taxed to the person who owns the property rather than the income receiver. - *Helvering v. Horst*: Labor earnings are taxed to the person performing the services rather than the income receiver.3. **Option C**: - *Helvering v. Horst*: It was held that earnings from labor are taxed to the service performer rather than the income receiver. - *Lucas v. Earl*: The assignment of income from property is taxed to the income receiver. Income can be assigned by arranging payment to another person.4. **Option D**: - *Lucas v. Earl*: The decision was that a business is taxed on earnings from services rendered. - *Helvering v. Horst*: The income from property assignment is taxed to the income receiver. Income can be assigned by arranging payment to another person.Understanding these principles is essential for comprehending the taxation responsibilities concerning income from labor and property. This foundational knowledge is crucial for both individuals and businesses to ensure tax compliance according to Supreme Court precedents.

explain the significance of lucas v. earl and helvering v. horst (A) Lucas v. Earl, the Supreme Court held that earnings from labor are taxed to the person who performs the services rather than the person who receives the income. In Helvering v. Horst, the Supreme Court held that income from property is taxed to the person who owns the property rather than the person who receives the income. One cannot assign income by arranging to have payment made to another person.Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution did not require states to provide for jury trials in civil cases. Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112 (1940), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the Social Security Act of 1935 was a valid exercise of the taxing power of Congress.