Chambers v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Third Circuit

Chambers v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

77 F.2d 95, 15 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1347, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 4506

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 29, 1935

Docket5597, 5598

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 77 F.2d 95 (Chambers v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chambers v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 77 F.2d 95, 15 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1347, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 4506 (3d Cir. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

These two appeals concern income tax in the same estate; one for the tax year of 1927, the other for 1929.

The underlying question involved is whether the gains realized in those years from the sale of certain stocks and real estate constituted corpus of the estate, and the tax was, therefore, payable by the trustees of the estate, or were gains and profits of the beneficiaries, and the tax was, therefore, payable by them. The Tax Board held the gains and profits were corpus, and the tax was, therefore, payable by the trustees.

The case turns on the construction and effect of the will of Fred N. Chambers, which created the trust. The pertinent facts are discussed at length by the Tax Board and by reference thereto we avoid needless repetition. The Board’s holding, “The petitioners have failed to show that any part of the gain here in question was from income or that it was actually distributed. They have, therefore, failed to overcome the respondent’s (the Commissioner’s) determination,” was justified, and, agreeing therewith, we limit ourselves to affirming its orders.

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

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

These two appeals concern income tax in the same estate; one for the tax year of 1927, the other for 1929.

The underlying question involved is whether the gains realized in those years from the sale of certain stocks and real estate constituted corpus of the estate, and the tax was, therefore, payable by the trustees of the estate, or were gains and profits of the beneficiaries, and the tax was, therefore, payable by them. The Tax Board held the gains and profits were corpus, and the tax was, therefore, payable by the trustees.

The case turns on the construction and effect of the will of Fred N. Chambers, which created the trust. The pertinent facts are discussed at length by the Tax Board and by reference thereto we avoid needless repetition. The Board’s holding, “The petitioners have failed to show that any part of the gain here in question was from income or that it was actually distributed. They have, therefore, failed to overcome the respondent’s (the Commissioner’s) determination,” was justified, and, agreeing therewith, we limit ourselves to affirming its orders.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 F.2d 95, 15 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1347, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 4506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chambers-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca3-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack