Field's Estate v. Commissioner

Second Circuit

Field's Estate v. Commissioner

144 F.2d 62, 32 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1148, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2748

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJuly 13, 1944

DocketNo. 202

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 144 F.2d 62 (Field's Estate v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Field's Estate v. Commissioner, 144 F.2d 62, 32 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1148, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2748 (2d Cir. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

In Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 111, 60 S.Ct. 444, 84 L.Ed. 604, 125 A.L.R. 1368, the Court said that “the measure of the tax is the value of the transferred property at the time when death brings it into enjoyment” Precisely what that means has been a matter of much comment.¹ We do not agree with the Tax Court that Smith v. Shaughnessy, 318 U.S. 176, 63 S.Ct. 545, 87 L.Ed. 690, which dealt with a gift tax, aids decision here. Whatever we might now hold if this were for us a novel question, we need not consider, for the matter is governed in this circuit by our decisions in Commissioner v. Flanders, 2 Cir., 111 F.2d 117 and Bankers Trust Co. v. Higgins, 2 Cir., 136 F.2d 477. Accordingly we hold that the value of the transfer at decedent’s death consisted of the value of the trust property minus the value of the life estates of his two nieces. The resulting taxable value here is $24,930.76. We reverse with directions to the Tax Court to fix the tax on that value.

Reversed and remanded.

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

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

In Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 111, 60 S.Ct. 444, 84 L.Ed. 604, 125 A.L.R. 1368, the Court said that “the measure of the tax is the value of the transferred property at the time when death brings it into enjoyment” Precisely what that means has been a matter of much comment.¹ We do not agree with the Tax Court that Smith v. Shaughnessy, 318 U.S. 176, 63 S.Ct. 545, 87 L.Ed. 690, which dealt with a gift tax, aids decision here. Whatever we might now hold if this were for us a novel question, we need not consider, for the matter is governed in this circuit by our decisions in Commissioner v. Flanders, 2 Cir., 111 F.2d 117 and Bankers Trust Co. v. Higgins, 2 Cir., 136 F.2d 477. Accordingly we hold that the value of the transfer at decedent’s death consisted of the value of the trust property minus the value of the life estates of his two nieces. The resulting taxable value here is $24,930.76. We reverse with directions to the Tax Court to fix the tax on that value.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 F.2d 62, 32 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1148, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fields-estate-v-commissioner-ca2-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack