Fry's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Third Circuit

Fry's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

205 F.2d 517, 44 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 98, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 4137

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJune 24, 1953

Docket11040

StatusPublished

Cited by38 cases

This text of 205 F.2d 517 (Fry's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fry's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 205 F.2d 517, 44 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 98, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 4137 (3d Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition to review a decision of the Tax Court. The question presented is whether a lump sum payment to the decedent in 1947 from an employees’ pension trust established by his employer was taxable to him as a capital gain or as if it were an annuity. The payment was made to the decedent upon his certification that he had reached the retirement age of 70 years but it appeared that he thereafter continued to render some services to his employer and continued to receive from his employer the same compensation which he had previously received. The Tax Court held that the payment was not made “on account of the employee’s separation from the service” within the meaning of the exception clause of Section 165(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 165(b), and hence was taxable to him under that section “as if it were an annuity” rather than as capital gain. The Court accordingly upheld the deficiency in tax determined by the Commissioner on that basis. We find ourselves in complete accord with the conclusions of the Tax Court for the reasons slated in the opinion filed for the court in banc by Judge Hill. 19 T.C. 461.

The decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition to review a decision of the Tax Court. The question presented is whether a lump sum payment to the decedent in 1947 from an employees’ pension trust established by his employer was taxable to him as a capital gain or as if it were an annuity. The payment was made to the decedent upon his certification that he had reached the retirement age of 70 years but it appeared that he thereafter continued to render some services to his employer and continued to receive from his employer the same compensation which he had previously received. The Tax Court held that the payment was not made “on account of the employee’s separation from the service” within the meaning of the exception clause of Section 165(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 165(b), and hence was taxable to him under that section “as if it were an annuity” rather than as capital gain. The Court accordingly upheld the deficiency in tax determined by the Commissioner on that basis. We find ourselves in complete accord with the conclusions of the Tax Court for the reasons slated in the opinion filed for the court in banc by Judge Hill. 19 T.C. 461.

The decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 F.2d 517, 44 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 98, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 4137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frys-estate-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca3-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack