Estate of Harry Prudowsky, Deceased, Vivian Prudowsky, Administratrix v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

465 F.2d 62, 30 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5856, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8253
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedJuly 25, 1972
Docket71-1716
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 465 F.2d 62 (Estate of Harry Prudowsky, Deceased, Vivian Prudowsky, Administratrix v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) 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
Estate of Harry Prudowsky, Deceased, Vivian Prudowsky, Administratrix v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 465 F.2d 62, 30 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5856, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8253 (7th Cir. 1972).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

At death decedent held assets as custodian for his minor children under the Wisconsin Uniform Gifts to Minors Act. 2 Decedent had been donor of the assets. The tax court held 3 the assets to be includible in decedent’s estate under both sections 2036 and 2038(a) (1) of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code. 4 The facts and reasoning are set forth in the tax court decision. We affirm.

On appeal, taxpayer has again stressed the contention that although the statutory terms of his custodianship reserved to him the power to use the assets to discharge his own obligation of support (thus bringing § 2036 into play) and to turn the assets over to the children before their majority (thus arousing § 2038), there is evidence which so clearly establishes his intention not to do either that he had effectively foreclosed the existence of such powers. We do not agree that the subjective and unilateral intentions claimed would supersede the statutory terms of custodianship.

In Stuit v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 452 F.2d 190 (7th Cir., 1971), assets of a custodianship under the Illinois uniform act were held, by virtue of § 2038, to be includible in the estate of the donor custodian. We said the decedent had the power to distribute the entire custodial property to the donees and terminate the arrangement. We find no adequate distinction.

The judgment is affirmed.

2

. Now §§ 880.61-71, 1971 Wis.Stats., formerly §§ 319.61-.71, Stats.

3

. 55 T.C. No. 90.

4

. 26 U.S.C. §§ 2036, 2038(a) (1).

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

Related

T.J. Henry Associates, Inc. v. Commissioner
80 T.C. No. 47 (U.S. Tax Court, 1983)
Exchange Bank & Trust Co. v. United States
694 F.2d 1261 (Federal Circuit, 1982)
Estate of Vogel v. Commissioner
1977 T.C. Memo. 209 (U.S. Tax Court, 1977)
Estate of Carpousis v. Commissioner
1974 T.C. Memo. 258 (U.S. Tax Court, 1974)
Eichstedt v. United States
354 F. Supp. 484 (N.D. California, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
465 F.2d 62, 30 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5856, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-harry-prudowsky-deceased-vivian-prudowsky-administratrix-v-ca7-1972.