Estate of Martha A. Allison v. Commissioner

5 T.C.M. 992, 1946 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 31
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedNovember 25, 1946
DocketDocket No. 7725.
StatusUnpublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 5 T.C.M. 992 (Estate of Martha A. Allison 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 Martha A. Allison v. Commissioner, 5 T.C.M. 992, 1946 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 31 (tax 1946).

Opinion

Estate of Martha A. Allison, Deceased, The Union National Bank of Pittsburgh, Executor v. Commissioner.
Estate of Martha A. Allison v. Commissioner
Docket No. 7725.
United States Tax Court
1946 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 31; 5 T.C.M. (CCH) 992; T.C.M. (RIA) 46273;
November 25, 1946

*31 1. Payments made by petitioner, as executor, to a bank and to decedent's daughter and son-in-law in satisfaction of notes held by the bank and signed by the daughter, and of interest paid by the daughter and her husband on such notes, which evidenced the loan of funds borrowed and used for the support of the decedent, held to be proper deductions from the gross estate as valid claims against the estate.

2. A real estate fee of $250, paid by petitioner, as executor, on the sale of a piece of rental property of the estate, disposed of during administration to avoid the necessity of expending estate funds in repairs, held deductible as an expense of administration.

3. The fair market value at decedent's death of certain bank stock determined.

Lee W. Eckels, Esq., 2812 Grant Bldg., Pittsburgh, Pa. for the petitioner. J. O. Kramer, Esq., for the respondent.

LEECH

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

LEECH, Judge: Respondent has determined a deficiency in estate tax in the amount of $4,075.81. Certain of the facts were stipulated and additional facts were established by testimony and exhibits introduced at the hearing. We find the facts as stipulated and*32 such additional facts as are hereinafter set forth are found upon the evidence. The issues are: (a) whether brokerage fee paid for the sale of real estate constitutes expense of administration; (b) the fair market value of certain stock; and (c) whether payments made by decedent's estate, in the sum of $8,091.38, are deductible from the gross estate as claims against the estate.

Findings of Fact

The Union National Bank of Pittsburgh (hereinafter referred to as "petitioner") is the duly qualified executor and trustee of the estate of Martha A. Allison, deceased. On December 26, 1943, decedent died testate, a resident of Wilkinsburg, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The estate tax return was filed on behalf of the decedent with the collector of internal revenue for the 23rd district of Pennsylvania at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In such return credit was claimed for the amount of $250, representing commission paid to a real estate broker. The amount of $8,091.38 was also claimed as representing debts of decedent. The respondent disallowed the deduction of the $250 item on the ground it did not represent an expense of administration. The items totaling $8,091.38 were disallowed as not*33 representing proper claims against the estate.

The aggregate amount of $8,091.38 represents five separate items, described by petitioner in its account as executor in the following manner:

February 21, 1944, The Wilkinsburg
Bank, payment of the following
notes, representing moneys loaned by
it on behalf of the decedent -
90-Day Promissory Note, 11/22/43$ 500.00
90-Day Promissory Note, 11/22/43786.08
90-Day Promissory Note, 11/22/433,500.00
July 15, 1944, reimbursement of inter-
est paid on notes to The Wilkinsburg
Bank representing moneys loaned by
it on behalf of the decedent -
Anna A. McMillin2,147.20
Edwin R. McMillin1,158.10

Anna A. McMillin is the daughter of decedent and the wife of Edwin R. McMillin. Decedent was a woman of substantial means. Her residence consisted of 12 rooms and she employed five servants. Decedent's daughter, with her family, resided a short distance from her mother. Late in 1926, at the decedent's request, the daughter, with her husband and child, moved into the decedent's residence for the purpose of caring for her mother and managing the home. During all the period involved the decedent was diabetic. She was a*34 nervous and erratic individual and association with her, without friction, was difficult. In 1927, decedent suffered a broken kneecap and was hospitalized. Under a power of attorney the daughter made various withdrawals from decedent's account at the Wilkinsburg Bank. These withdrawals, aggregating $2,390.66, were for expenditures made in connection with the maintenance of decedent's home and her personal care. For the purpose of securing funds necessary for the maintenance of the decedent's home and her personal care, the daughter obtained loans, aggregating $3,500, from the Wilkinsburg Bank on her notes. Early in 1930, the decedent had some disagreement with her daughter respecting the aforementioned bank withdrawals. She notified the Wilkinsburg Bank that she disapproved of various withdrawals aggregating $2,390.66. Decedent advised the bank that she would withdraw her deposit, then in excess of $200,000, unless that amount was restored to her account. This threat alarmed the bank's directorate and a meeting was called to discuss the situation. At this meeting, Mr. Bostwick, a personal attorney of decedent and a director of the bank, advised the board that he had talked with decedent*35 during her illness and that the indebtedness in question was hers and not that of the daughter. In the belief that decedent would shortly acknowledge the indebtedness and discharge it, it was decided that the bank should request Mrs. McMillin to give her personal note for such amount, which would permit the bank to restore such amount to decedent's account.

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

Related

Dauphin Deposit Trust Company v. McGinnes
208 F. Supp. 228 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1962)
In Re Bartlett's Estate
153 F. Supp. 674 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1957)
Brown v. Smith
153 F. Supp. 674 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 T.C.M. 992, 1946 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-martha-a-allison-v-commissioner-tax-1946.