Estate of Roodner v. Commissioner

64 T.C. 680, 1975 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 95
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJuly 30, 1975
DocketDocket No. 4621-74
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 64 T.C. 680 (Estate of Roodner 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 Roodner v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 680, 1975 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 95 (tax 1975).

Opinion

OPINION

Featherston, Judge:

Respondent determined a deficiency of $1,940.77 in the Federal income tax reported on the final return of the deceased taxpayer, Theodore Roodner, for the period January 1, 1971, through June 25, 1971, the date of his death. The only issue for decision is whether that period is “an entire taxable year” as that phrase is used in section 911(a)(1).1

All of the facts are stipulated.

At the time the petition was filed, the legal residence of Ronald Wagner, administrator of the Estate of.Theodore Roodner, deceased, was Oakland, Calif. The administrator of the estate filed the final Federal income tax return of the decedent for the taxable year January 1, 1971, through June 25, 1971, with the Internal Revenue Service Center, Ogden, Utah.

Theodore Roodner (hereinafter referred to as decedent) was employed as an attorney by the Kaiser Aluminum Technical Services, Inc. (Kaiser), prior tq his death on June 25, 1971. Decedent was assigned by Kaiser to Buenos Aires, Argentina, as legal representative of its local office. He left the United States on or about November 1, 1970, and remained in Argentina for an uninterrupted period beginning prior to January 1, 1971, and ending June 25, 1971. During the period January 1, 1971, through June 25, 1971, he was a bona fide resident of Argentina. Decedent earned and was paid $22,999.03, by Kaiser for the performance of services in Argentina during that period.

Decedent was at all pertinent times a citizen of the United States. His marital domicile was the State of California and, under the laws of that State, one-half of all of his income is deemed to belong to his spouse. Since the income earned by decedent in Argentina was considered community income under California law, the administrator of his estate reported only one-half thereof on decedent’s final income tax return for the period ending June 25, 1971, the other one-half being reported by decedent’s surviving spouse. In preparing decedent’s return, the administrator excluded from gross income the amount of $9,643.82, claiming that section 911(a)(1) applied to the income earned in Argentina. Respondent determined a deficiency by including the $9,643.82 in petitioner’s gross income.

Section 911(a)(1)2 provides that gross income does not include income earned by an individual citizen of the United States if he “has been a bona fide resident of a foreign country * * * for an uninterrupted period which includes an entire taxable year” and if certain other conditions not in dispute are satisfied. Decedent’s income tax return for the period January 1, 1971, to the date of his death on June 25, 1971, was filed for a short taxable year pursuant to section 443(a)(2).3 Citing sections 441(b)(3)4 and 7701(a)(23),5 petitioner argues that January 1, 1971, through June 25, 1971, was decedent’s “entire taxable year,” thus satisfying the requirement of section 91 l(a)(l).

Respondent contends that, despite the clear language of the Code sections cited by petitioner, Congress intended the phrase “entire taxable year,” as that phrase is used in section 911(a)(1), to mean a minimum 12-month period which includes a full taxable year.6 We disagree and we hold for petitioner.

The literal language of section 911(a)(1) cogently supports petitioner’s position. The phrase “taxable year” is a term of art defined in sections 441(b)(3) and 7701(a)(23), quoted in footnotes 4 and 5, supra, to mean the period for which the return was made. The language in those definitions is clear and unambiguous. It means what it says. The return here in dispute was properly made for the period January 1,1971, through June 25, 1971, the date of decedent’s death, and that was decedent’s “entire taxable year.”

When Congress intended to set minimum time requirements for the exclusion of income earned abroad, it did so with precision in section 911(a)(2).7 If Congress had intended the result espoused by respondent, section 911(a)(1) could easily have been written as “a minimum uninterrupted period of 12 months which included an entire taxable year.” Congress did not do so but, instead, used a technical term which is precisely defined in sections 441(b)(3) and 7701(a)(23). There is “no more persuasive evidence of the purpose of a statute than the words by which the legislature undertook to give expression to its wishes.” United States v. American Trucking Assns., 310 U.S. 534, 543 (1940). We cannot depart from the statutory language to effectuate what respondent may surmise was the congressional purpose. Curtis T. Busse, 58 T.C. 389, 392 (1972), affd. 479 F.2d 1147 (7th Cir. 1973).

The legislative history of section 911(a), relied upon by respondent, in any event, will not support a different result. The predecessor of section 911(a) was section 116(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. It originally read, in pertinent part, as follows:

In the case of an individual citizen of the United States, a bona fide nonresident of the United States for more than six months during the taxable year, amounts received from sources without the United States (except amounts paid by the United States or any agency thereof) if such amounts would constitute earned income as defined in section 25(a) if received from sources within the United States * * *

Section 148, Revenue Act of 1942, ch. 619, 56 Stat. 841-842, amended the section so as to read:

(1) Foreign resident for entire taxable year — In the case of an individual citizen of the United States, who establishes to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that he is a bona fide resident of a foreign country or countries during the entire taxable year, amounts received from sources without the United States (except amounts paid by the United States or any agency thereof) if such amounts would constitute earned income as defined in section 25(a) if received from sources within the United States * * *

The reason for the change was to prevent abuses by taxpayers who merely absented themselves from the United States for 6 months for tax-evasion purposes. The law was rewritten to require bona fide residence in a foreign country as opposed to nonresidence in the United States. Commissioner v. Matthew, 335 F.2d 231, 234 (5th Cir. 1964); Downs v. Commissioner, 166 F.2d 504, 507 (9th Cir. 1948); Swenson v. Thomas, 164 F.2d 783, 784 (5th Cir. 1947); White v. Hofferbert, 88 F. Supp. 457, 462-463 (D. Md. 1950);8 S. Rept. No. 1631, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1942-2 C.B. 548-549.9

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

Related

Lansdown v. Commissioner
1994 T.C. Memo. 452 (U.S. Tax Court, 1994)
Ritchie v. Commissioner
1989 T.C. Memo. 426 (U.S. Tax Court, 1989)
Hoppes v. Commissioner
1989 T.C. Memo. 228 (U.S. Tax Court, 1989)
Williams v. Commissioner
1987 T.C. Memo. 308 (U.S. Tax Court, 1987)
Schoneberger v. Commissioner
74 T.C. 1016 (U.S. Tax Court, 1980)
Ocrant v. Commissioner
65 T.C. 1156 (U.S. Tax Court, 1976)
Estate of Roodner v. Commissioner
64 T.C. 680 (U.S. Tax Court, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 T.C. 680, 1975 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-roodner-v-commissioner-tax-1975.