Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. William G. Ostler

237 F.2d 501, 50 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 314, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 5018
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedOctober 5, 1956
Docket14984_1
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 237 F.2d 501 (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. William G. Ostler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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. William G. Ostler, 237 F.2d 501, 50 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 314, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 5018 (9th Cir. 1956).

Opinion

HEALY, Circuit Judge.

The Commissioner seeks review of a decision of the Tax Court holding that there was no deficiency in respondent’s income tax for 1950. ’

In that year, Frances S. Ostler, then the taxpayer’s wife, obtained from him in a California court an interlocutory decree of divorce. The decree became final in 1951. Taxpayer and Frances filed a joint income tax return for 1950.

The Commissioner determined a deficiency on the ground that § 51(b) (5) (B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C.A. § 51(b) (5) (B) 1 precludes the filing of a joint return under § 51(b) (1) of the Code 2 while the interlocutory divorce decree was in effect. On petition for- redeterniination the Tax Court held for the taxpayer-on the authority of Eccles v. Commissioner, 19 T.C. 1049, affirmed, 4 Cir., 1953, 208 F.2d 796.

The Tax Court has held to the same effect in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Evans, 19 T.C. 1102, affirmed by the Tenth Circuit, 1954, 211 F.2d 378. See also for the same construction of the Code provision Holcomb v. United States, D.C.N.D.Cal., 137 F.Supp. 619, affirmed by us this day.

No judicial holdings to the contrary have been called- to our attention. Seeing no sufficient reason for departing from these uniform decisions we affirm the judgment of the Tax Court.

We may add that as an original matter, the Commissioner’s argument has considerable merit, but there should be some certitude in the law. If the rules on the tax consequences of interlocutory divorces are to be changed, it should be done by legislative action.

1

. So far as pertinent, this provision reads :■ ■ “For the purposes of this section * * * an individual who is legally separated from his spouse under a decree of divorce • or of separate maintenance shall not be considered as married.”

2

. The language of this section, in pertinent part, reads: “A husband and wife may make a single return jointly.”

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

Related

Deyoe v. Commissioner
66 T.C. 904 (U.S. Tax Court, 1976)
Wright v. Commissioner
62 T.C. No. 45 (U.S. Tax Court, 1974)
Seaman v. Commissioner
1970 T.C. Memo. 284 (U.S. Tax Court, 1970)
Johnson v. Commissioner
50 T.C. 723 (U.S. Tax Court, 1968)
Palmquist v. United States
284 F. Supp. 577 (N.D. California, 1967)
Lawatch v. Lawatch
327 P.2d 603 (California Court of Appeal, 1958)
Gersten v. Commissioner
28 T.C. 756 (U.S. Tax Court, 1957)
Calhoun v. Commissioner
27 T.C. 115 (U.S. Tax Court, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
237 F.2d 501, 50 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 314, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 5018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commissioner-of-internal-revenue-v-william-g-ostler-ca9-1956.