Beach v. Busey

64 F. Supp. 220, 34 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 964, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1615
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio
DecidedAugust 28, 1945
DocketCivil Action No. 853
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 64 F. Supp. 220 (Beach v. Busey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Beach v. Busey, 64 F. Supp. 220, 34 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 964, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1615 (S.D. Ohio 1945).

Opinion

UNDERWOOD, District Judge.

This suit is brought by the administrator of Harry L. Beach, deceased, to recover the sum of $18,655.70 paid by the administrator under an additional assessment of federal estate taxes. The question involved is the taxability of funds involved in two trusts which the Collector found to be taxable and which the plaintiff contends are not taxable. The case was tried to thé Court without the intervention of a jury and it is now for determination on the merits.

The entire matter was submitted to the Court upon a “Statement of Fact and Stipulation Thereto,” a copy of the federal estate tax return, and a copy of the decedent’s will. No other evidence was offered, either oral or documentary.

For a detailed statement of facts, the Court relies upon and adopts the following:

Statement of Fact and Stipulation Thereto.

1. Defendant is and was at all times hereinafter mentioned, Collector of Internal Revenue for the 11th Ohio Collection District at Columbus, Ohio.

[221]*2212. Plaintiff is and was at all times hereinafter mentioned a resident of Coshocton County, Ohio, and the duly appointed, qualified, and acting executor under the will of Harry L. Beach, who died on March 25, 1942, a resident of Coshocton County, Ohio and a citizen of the United States.

3. Plaintiff, as such executor, filed with the defendant Collector at Columbus, Ohio, in June of 1942, an estate tax return for the estate of Harry L. Beach, deceased, and paid to defendant Collector on or about June 24, 1942, the sum of $98,849.08, being the amount of tax called for by said return.

4. " Plaintiff further paid to defendant on or about June 24, 1942, the additional sum of $10,906.04, representing a deficiency in estate tax which the Commissioner of Internal Revenue proposed to assess against plaintiff.

5. Plaintiff further paid to the defendant on or about June 24, 1943, under protest, the sum of $18,655.70, being a portion of a deficiency assessment of $24,748.48 which the Commissioner of Internal Revenue proposed to assess against plaintiff, and thereafter plaintiff filed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue by filing with the defendant, a claim for refund, a copy of which (except for the signatures and seal which were attached to the original), marked “Exhibit C”, is attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof as though fully rewritten herein.

6. Said deficiency assessment of $24,-748.48 was subject to credit for State inheritance taxes paid to the extent of $6092.-78, and this amount was paid to the State of Ohio and Florida by way of inheritance taxes, and evidence of such payment duly submitted to defendant so that the amount of said deficiency was reduced to $18,655.-70, which sum, together with the estate tax on such additional administration expense as shall be incurred in the estate, is in controversy in this proceeding.

7. Said deficiency assessment represented the estate tax on the value of 80 per cent of the assets at date of decedent’s death held pursuant to two certain trust agreements, which agreements marked respectively Exhibits “A” and “B” are attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof as though fully rewritten herein.

8. On or about December 14, 1943, defendant Collector, in writing, rejected said claim for refund in its entirety.

9. On March 2, 1925, Harry L. Beach and his wife, Elizabeth C. Beach, as Set-tlors, delivered $100,000 in United States Bonds payable to bearer, to the Huntington National Bafik of Columbus, Ohio, and entered into a trust agreement of even date therewith by the terms of which said Bank agreed to hold said bonds upon the terms and conditions set forth in said trust agreement. ' (This is the trust agreement attached hereto and marked “Exhibit A.”)

10. On January 23, 1926, Harry L. Beach and his wife, Elizabeth C. Beach, as Settlors, delivered $100,000 in United States Bonds payable to bearer, to the Commercial National Bank of Coshocton, Ohio, and entered into a trust agreement of even date therewith by the terms of which said Bank agreed to hold said bonds upon the terms and conditions set forth in said trust agreement. (This is the trust agreement attached hereto and marked “Exhibit B.”).

11. In each case Harry L. Beach contributed $80,000 face value of U. S. Bonds and Elizabeth C. Beach contributed $20,-000.

12. Harry L. Beach died on March 25, 1942.

13. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed Federal estate tax on the remainder value of the two trust estates after the death of Elizabeth C. Beach, to the extent of the 80 per cent interest contributed by Harry L. Beach.

14. At the time the first trust was created on March 2, 1925, Harry L. Beach had three children and two grandchildren living; and when the second trust was created in January, 1926, he had three children and three grandchildren living. The following list shows the names, relationship, and date of birth of decedent’s lineal descendants surviving him :

James W. Beach — born Feb. 4, 1895— Son
Henry Beach — born Oct. 3, 1921 — Grandchild
James Beach — born June 3, 1925' — ■ Grandchild
Mary Elizabeth Beach — born Jan. 11, 1930 — Grandchild
Nolle Beach (Lynde) Branson — fcftrn Jan. 3, 1898 — Daughter
Elizabeth Lynde — born June 11, 1923— Grandchild
Camilla Beach — born August 26, 1900 — ■ Daughter

[222]*22215. At the time of his death Harry L. Beach was survived by his widow, Elizabeth C. Beach, his three children, and his four grandchildren, as above set forth.

16. Camilla Beach was an invalid, unable to support or care for herself.

17. At the time the first trust was created, Harry L. Beach, was 55 years of age. At the time the second trust was created he was 56 years of age.

Stipulation.

“It is hereby stipulated and agreed by the parties plaintiff and defendant in this action, for the purposes of this case only, by their respective counsel that the facts stated in the foregoing statement consisting of four pages and exhibits therein referred to are true and correct and that said statement and exhibits should be filed and used as agreed evidence, in the case, but each party hereby reserves the right to introduce further evidence on the trial of the case if it so desires to add to or supplement the facts set forth in said statement.”

“Exhibit A”

Agreement.

“This Agreement made, executed and delivered this 2nd day of March, 1925, at Columbus, Ohio, by and between Harry L. Beach and Elizabeth C. Beach, Husband and Wife, of Coshocton, Ohio, hereinafter called ‘The Settlors’ and the Huntington Bank of Columbus, Ohio, hereinafter called ‘The Trustee’, Witnesseth:

“The Settlors hereby assign, transfer and set over unto said Trustee and its successors in trust, the following described United States Bonds, of a total par value of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000.00) Dollars (all being coupon bonds):

United States Trasury 4% Bonds, dated December 15th, 1924, and maturing 1944-1954:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

First Nat. Bank of Kansas City v. Nee
67 F. Supp. 815 (W.D. Missouri, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 F. Supp. 220, 34 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 964, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beach-v-busey-ohsd-1945.