The Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed a surtax, determining that the entire income should have been reported in Mr. Seaborn's return.

Mr. Seaborn paid under protest and brought this suit in federal district court to recover the amount.

[10] Justice Roberts explained that Earl presented "quite a different question from this, because here, by law, the earnings are never the property of the husband, but that of the community.

"[11] The Supreme Court's decision in Poe v. Seaborn conferred significant tax advantages upon married couples residing in community property states.

The effects of this disparity became even more significant as marginal tax rates rose around World War II.

[5][12] Consequently, between 1939 and 1947, several states adopted community property regimes, including Michigan,[13] Nebraska,[14] Oklahoma,[15] Oregon,[16] and Pennsylvania.