Hays v. Commissioner

11 T.C.M. 461, 1952 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 229
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMay 12, 1952
DocketDocket No. 14080.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 11 T.C.M. 461 (Hays 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
Hays v. Commissioner, 11 T.C.M. 461, 1952 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 229 (tax 1952).

Opinion

Olive B. Hays v. Commissioner.
Hays v. Commissioner
Docket No. 14080.
United States Tax Court
1952 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 229; 11 T.C.M. (CCH) 461; T.C.M. (RIA) 52134;
May 12, 1952

*229 In 1921 petitioner and other interested parties entered into an agreement with her stepmother, the widow of petitioner's father, in order to prevent the widow from contesting the will of her deceased husband. To carry out the terms of such agreement, petitioner deeded certain individually owned realty to her daughter in trust, providing for a payment out of trust income of $250 per month to the widow for life. If the income from the trust was, at any time, insufficient to make such payments, petitioner, he son, and her daughter undertook, jointly and severally, to make such payments. Petitioner retained no interest in the property. In 1940, petitioner and her daughter entered into a lease of such property. All expenses for maintenance of the property were paid out of petitioner's personal bank account and all rental income deposited in such account. Payments to the widow were also paid from said account. Held, neither items of income nor expenses resulting from the property held in trust are includible or deductible in petitioner's Federal income tax returns. Held, further, payments to the widow are not deductible by petitioner in the years paid as they were capital expenditures. *230

J. Edmunds Miller, C.P.A., and Ralph Robert Perry, Esq., for the petitioner. William B. Springer, Esq., for the respondent.

RICE

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

The respondent determined a deficiency in income and victory tax for the taxable year 1943 in the amount of $615.26. The year 1942 is also involved due to the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943. Petitioner claims an overpayment in income tax for the year 1943 in the amount of $909.98. The issues to be decided are (1) whether the petitioner is entitled to deductions for losses under section 23 (e) (2) of the Code for the years 1942 and 1943 in the respective amounts of $1,653.29 and $1,602.64, and (2) whether*231 petitioner is entitled to deductions for the years 1942 and 1943 for payments made to her father's widow, Zora Byers Johnson, in those years.

Some of the facts were stipulated.

Findings of Fact

The stipulated facts are so found and are incorporated herein.

Petitioner is an individual who filed her 1942 and 1943 income tax returns with the collector of internal revenue for the district of Nebraska.

Petitioner's father, Abraham M. Byers, (hereinafter referred to as Abraham) died testate on or about January 14, 1920. At the time of his death, he left surviving him his wife, Zora C. Byers, now Zora Byers Johnson, (hereinafter referred to as Zora); his daughter, petitioner herein; a son, Edward P. Byers, who died in 1921; and two grandchildren, the children of petitioner, Frances B. Hays, now Frances Hays Gay (hereinafter referred to as Frances), and Alden M. Hays (hereinafter referred to as Alden).

In his last will and testament, Abraham devised and bequeathed to Zora the home in which he and Zora resided, together with the household furniture and furnishings and certain notes aggregating about $15,000, or, if the notes were paid before his death, $15,000 in cash. Such gifts*232 were in pursuance of an antenuptial agreement. Personal property on farms deeded to petitioner before her father's death was bequeathed to petitioner. The remainder of his estate was devised and bequeathed in trust to the Lincoln Trust Company of Lincoln, Nebraska, with certain provisions for distribution of income to specified beneficiaries, including $400 annually to Zora for life; and, after these various payments were made, three-fourths of the remainder of the income was to go to petitioner annually for life. At petitioner's death, the income payable to her was to be paid to her children. Such payment would lapse if either child was dead and become a part of the corpus of the trust. Fifteen years after Abraham's death, the remainder and residue of his estate was to go to his grandchildren equally or to the survivor, if, at that time, all persons entitled to income from the trust were dead. Otherwise, final distribution was not to be made until such persons had died.

On October 5, 1920, petitioner, Frances, Alden, and Zora entered into an agreement which referred to the bequests made to Zora and in which the parties agreed that "considering the amount of the estate of the said*233 Abraham M. Byers, deceased, that the bequest to his wife, Zora C. Byers, is insufficient to provide her a comfortable living * * *." In said agreement, which was recorded on May 23, 1921, the Lincoln Trust Company of Lincoln was authorized and permitted as executor and trustee to pay to Zora, in lieu of the $400 annual bequest, the sum of $3,000 annually for her life. Petitioner, Frances, and Alden covenanted and agreed that they would be responsible and liable for the payment of said $3,000 annually, or the sum of $250 monthly commencing February 19, 1920. In consideration for the agreement to pay the $3,000 per year, Zora covenanted and agreed that she would make and execute a will devising and bequeathing the residence and household goods given her under the will to petitioner or to Frances and Alden or the survivor or survivors of them. Zora further agreed that should she sell the property prior to her death she would provide in her will that a sum equal to the value of the property would go to petitioner and Frances and Alden or the survivor or survivors of them. Such agreement further provided that the agreement was a full and complete settlement of the estate of petitioner's*234 father so far as Zora was concerned; and in consideration of said agreement, Zora released and relinquished all her rights, title, interest, claims or demands against the estate except for the $15,000, the house, and its furnishings.

On July 7, 1921, petitioner, her husband, James M.

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

Related

Klein v. Commissioner
31 B.T.A. 910 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 T.C.M. 461, 1952 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hays-v-commissioner-tax-1952.