Charles C. Haffner III and the Northern Trust Company, as Executors of the Will of Charles C. Haffner, Jr., Deceased v. United States

757 F.2d 920
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedApril 23, 1985
Docket84-1946
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 757 F.2d 920 (Charles C. Haffner III and the Northern Trust Company, as Executors of the Will of Charles C. Haffner, Jr., Deceased v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Charles C. Haffner III and the Northern Trust Company, as Executors of the Will of Charles C. Haffner, Jr., Deceased v. United States, 757 F.2d 920 (7th Cir. 1985).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The executors of the estate of Charles C. Haffner, Jr., Deceased, brought this action against the United States, asserting a claim for refund of estate taxes paid on public housing agency obligations, known as Project Notes, issued pursuant to the “United States Housing Act of 1937,” as amended by the Housing and Community . Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. § 1437. On cross motions for summary judgment the district court, in a detailed and well reasoned opinion, held that the Project Notes were exempt from federal estate taxes under section 11(b) of the Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. § 1437i(b). Haffner v. United States, 585 F.Supp. 354 (N.D.Ill. 1984).

We agree with the district court. With the following minor corrections we adopt Judge Will’s opinion and affirm the judgment.

In the fourth full paragraph on page 356, lines 12-13, the citation should read United States v. Manufacturers Nat’l Bank of Detroit.

In the fourth full paragraph on page 357, lines 9-11, the final phrase of the quotation should read: shall be exempt from all taxation now or hereafter imposed by the United States.

In the second full paragraph on page 358, lines 18-19, the citation should read American Bank and Trust Co. v. Dallas County.

The third full paragraph on page 359 should read:

The Jandorf case is practically on all fours with this one. At issue there was the tax treatment of Victory Liberty [921]*921bonds held by a foreign investor, obligations that were authorized by section 4 of the Victory Liberty Loan Act of March 3, 1919, Pub.L. No. 65-328, 40 Stat. 1309, 1311 (1919). Section 1 of the First Liberty Bond Act of April 24, 1917, Pub.L. No. 65-3, 40 Stat. 35 (1917) describes the tax treatment accorded bonds sold to United States investors and section 4 of the Victory Liberty Loan Act amends a prior act which describes that of bonds sold to foreign investors and purchased with foreign money. The wording of sections 1 and 4 is materially identical to that of sections 20(b) and 5(e), respectively, of the 1937 Act.

In the first full paragraph on page 361, line 8, the citation should read: 88 Stat. 633 (1974). The citation in the final line of that paragraph should read: 88 Stat. 633, 653 (1974).

The second full paragraph on page 361 should read as follows:

In 1949, Congress rewrote section 20 of the 1937 Act deleting any reference to the tax treatment of Authority obligations. See Section 304 of the Housing Act of 1949, Pub.L. No. 81-171, 63 Stat. 413, 427 (1949); 42 U.S.C. § 1420. After the 1949 Act became law, there were two tax exemptions for local housing agency obligations: Section 5(e) of the 1937 Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1437i(b), which applied to obligations issued pursuant to the 1937 Act, and Section 102(g) of the 1949 Act, Pub.L. No. 81-171, 63 Stat. 413, 416 (1949), 42 U.S.C. § 1452(g), which applied to obligations issued pursuant to the 1949 Act.

With the corrections set forth above, we adopt the opinion of the district court as the opinion of this court and affirm the judgment.1

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Bunce v. United States
28 Fed. Cl. 500 (Federal Claims, 1993)
Estate of Prince v. Commissioner
1991 T.C. Memo. 208 (U.S. Tax Court, 1991)
Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Center v. United States
684 F. Supp. 986 (N.D. Illinois, 1988)
United States v. Wells Fargo Bank
485 U.S. 351 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Estate of Egger v. Commissioner
89 T.C. No. 50 (U.S. Tax Court, 1987)
Herbert v. United States
662 F. Supp. 573 (S.D. New York, 1987)
Shackelford v. United States
649 F. Supp. 1347 (E.D. Virginia, 1986)
Estate of Bradford v. United States
645 F. Supp. 476 (N.D. California, 1986)
Netsky v. United States
652 F. Supp. 783 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
757 F.2d 920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-c-haffner-iii-and-the-northern-trust-company-as-executors-of-the-ca7-1985.