Estate of Mackenzie v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Estate of Mackenzie v. Commissioner

8 B.T.A. 740

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedOctober 10, 1927

DocketDocket No. 11141

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 8 B.T.A. 740 (Estate of Mackenzie v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Board of Tax Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estate of Mackenzie v. Commissioner, 8 B.T.A. 740 (bta 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

[741]*741OPINION.

Trammell :

The only reason why the respondent included the land set out in the findings of fact in the assets of the decedent appears to have been the fact that one Matthew O’Brien filed a claim against the decedent’s estate in connection with the property. There was no testimony as to the nature of the claim or any evidence which would indicate that R. J. Mackenzie, the decedent, had any interest whatever in the property. The claim of O’Brien against the estate was not paid by the administrator. The property in question was acquired by Mae E. Mackenzie by warranty deed and in the absence of evidence to show that the decedent had some interest in this property, it was properly omitted from the estate-tax return.

Judgment will be er+ered for the petitioner on 15 days’ notice, una.s Rule 50.

Considered by MoRRis and Smith.

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

[741]*741OPINION.

Trammell :

The only reason why the respondent included the land set out in the findings of fact in the assets of the decedent appears to have been the fact that one Matthew O’Brien filed a claim against the decedent’s estate in connection with the property. There was no testimony as to the nature of the claim or any evidence which would indicate that R. J. Mackenzie, the decedent, had any interest whatever in the property. The claim of O’Brien against the estate was not paid by the administrator. The property in question was acquired by Mae E. Mackenzie by warranty deed and in the absence of evidence to show that the decedent had some interest in this property, it was properly omitted from the estate-tax return.

Judgment will be er+ered for the petitioner on 15 days’ notice, una.s Rule 50.

Considered by MoRRis and Smith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 B.T.A. 740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-mackenzie-v-commissioner-bta-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack