Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. BARNES'ESTATE

30 F.2d 289, 7 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 8434, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 2387
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedJanuary 11, 1929
Docket3910, 3911
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 30 F.2d 289 (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. BARNES'ESTATE) 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
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. BARNES'ESTATE, 30 F.2d 289, 7 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 8434, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 2387 (3d Cir. 1929).

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

The underlying question in these cases is whether a bona fide gift of an interest in a coal-mining company partnership in Pennsylvania was made by their respective husbands to the two women taxpayers. No notice was given to the third partner of the gift, transfer to the women was not registered, and they took no part in the management; they received the profits accruing to them as partners, made income reports accordingly, and paid the tax.

The Commissioner contended thei gifts were not made in good faith and assessed the tax against the husbands. On appeal, the tax board found: “We are convinced that John Barnes, Jr., and Joseph Barnes, in December, 1939, in good faith, intended to give, and did give, to their several wives their several beneficial interests in the partnership of Atherton & Barnes, and that they and their wives thereafter acted upon that basis; heneo there was >2> fraud” — a finding supported by the evidence.

We find the tax board committed no error on holding that the Pennsylvania statutes, viz. the Uniform Partnership Act of March 26, 1935 (Pa. St. 3920, § 16596 et seq.), and the Partnership Registration Act of April 14, 1851 (Pa. St. 1920, §§ 16639, 16640), did not invalidate the gift.

The order of the tax board is therefore affirmed.

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

Related

Hanson v. Birmingham
92 F. Supp. 33 (N.D. Iowa, 1950)
Champlin v. Commissioner
71 F.2d 23 (Tenth Circuit, 1934)
Rossmoore v. Anderson
1 F. Supp. 35 (S.D. New York, 1932)
Leininger v. Commissioner
51 F.2d 7 (Sixth Circuit, 1931)
Larsen v. Burnet
50 F.2d 308 (D.C. Circuit, 1930)
Harris v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
39 F.2d 546 (Second Circuit, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 F.2d 289, 7 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 8434, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 2387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commissioner-of-internal-revenue-v-barnesestate-ca3-1929.