Estate of Barad v. Commissioner

13 T.C.M. 223, 1954 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 275
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMarch 16, 1954
DocketDocket No. 39574.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 13 T.C.M. 223 (Estate of Barad v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Estate of Barad v. Commissioner, 13 T.C.M. 223, 1954 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 275 (tax 1954).

Opinion

Estate of Berman Barad, Deceased, Ada Lenobel, Selina Schoenfeld, Edie Sandler, Harvey Jules Barad, Executrices v. Commissioner.
Estate of Barad v. Commissioner
Docket No. 39574.
United States Tax Court
1954 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 275; 13 T.C.M. (CCH) 223; T.C.M. (RIA) 54082;
March 16, 1954
Samuel Brodsky, Esq., for the petitioners. W. Preston White, Esq., for the respondent.

OPPER

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

OPPER, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $19,441.83 in petitioners' estate tax for the year 1948. The sole contested issue is whether a transfer by the decedent of certain shares of common stock in 1941 constituted a transfer made in contemplation of death or a transfer in which decedent retained possession or enjoyment of, or the right to the income from, the property until his death within the meaning of section 811 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Findings of Fact

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly. Petitioners filed an estate tax return*276 with the collector for the first district of New York.

Berman Barad, hereinafter referred to as decedent, was born in Rumania. Decedent emigrated to the United States in 1903, when he was about 12 years of age, with his mother, father, three sisters and one brother. Decedent began working almost immediately after his arrival in the United States. Before 1916 he had operated, successfully, a candy stand, a paper bindery and a leather trading company.

In 1916, decedent founded the Barad Tool & Supply Company, Inc., hereinafter called the Company, with $40 supplied by his sister Anna. The Company engaged in the business of buying and selling machine cutting tools.

Decedent's family continued to live together until 1921, when he married his first wife, Hattie Michaelberg. Decedent's first wife worked with him in the Company, helping him in purchasing; in making bids for merchandise; in typing; in answering the telephone; and in other aspects of operating the business. By 1934, the Company was successful. In 1934, decedent's first wife gave birth to their only child, Harvey Jules Barad, and died in childbirth.

Shortly after the death of decedent's first wife his married sister, *277 Ada Lenobel, who had 4 years earlier lost her own child, offered to care for Harvey, but decedent insisted that he and Harvey live in the same apartment with his sister Ada and her husband, and his sister Anna Barad. Accordingly, Ada Lenobel and her husband gave up their own apartment, and Anna Barad gave up living with her father, and they all moved with decedent and Harvey into a large apartment which decedent rented.

From that time forward, decedent paid for all expenses, including rent, food and other expenses pertaining to the entire household. In addition to the household expenses, decedent occasionally gave his sister Ada Lenobel money for her own expenses. He paid the expenses of an operation she had in 1931, and of her two major operations in 1942. He also had taken out a life insurance policy payable to his sister in the amount of $1,000 before his first marriage, which she received at his death.

Decedent's sister Anna did the cooking for the household, and attended to decedent's personal needs, including laundry and mending of his clothes.

Decedent's sister Ada Lenobel was responsible for the care and upbringing of his son Harvey. She nursed him through various illnesses*278 and operations when he was 2 to 3 years old, and tried to substitute the love that his mother, had she lived, would have given him.

Decedent was exceptionally devoted to Harvey. By 1939, when his son was 5 years old, he had formulated a plan to set up a trust for Harvey's benefit, and advised his sisters Ada and Anna that he wanted to set up such a trust. At that time, decedent had no intention of remarrying and the plan was entirely unrelated to any possibility of remarriage.

Ada and her husband were in poor circumstances, and she wanted to go to work, but decedent was opposed to her working, and preferred that she stay with Harvey. Since 1918, decedent had always taken care of his oldest sister, Anna, who was unmarried. Decedent also wanted to do something for Ada, who had struggled since her marriage to make ends meet. Decedent told Ada that he wanted to provide in the trust that whoever took care of Harvey should receive $20 a week.

Although decedent lost a considerable sum of money in the stock market crash of 1929, he never again speculated in the market or lost any more money there. And he informed his attorney that he would never speculate in Wall Street again. Although*279 decedent was a generous man, he was not such a free spender as to endanger his business or personal finances in any way.

Ada began to urge decedent to set up the trust immediately after he suggested it. Discussions between them took place at their home, sometimes until late at night. Ada knew, and counted on the fact, that as long as Harvey was taken care of, she, too, would have security. She, and her sister Anna, before 1941, frequently and actively urged decedent to set up a permanent trust for Harvey's security.

On April 27, 1941, decedent, then 51 years of age, was married to his second wife, Betty Kazen. Harvey, however, continued to live with Ada Lenobel and her husband up to the time he went to college.

Decedent complained of difficulties with his second wife about a month after the marriage and thereafter on the ground that she was always demanding more and more money from decedent for herself and for the support of her parents; that she never stayed in the home decedent had furnished for her; and that he was forced to eat all his meals out. Decedent's second wife also refused to have anything to do with Harvey, decedent's son. Demands were continuously instigated by*280 his wife's sister and mother, and she was always trying to get as much from him as she possibly could get.

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

Related

United States v. Wells
283 U.S. 102 (Supreme Court, 1931)
Estate of Douglass v. Commissioner
2 T.C. 487 (U.S. Tax Court, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 T.C.M. 223, 1954 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-barad-v-commissioner-tax-1954.