Helburn v. Ballard

Sixth Circuit

Helburn v. Ballard

85 F.2d 613, 18 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 479, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4197, 18 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 479

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 7, 1936

Docket6774

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 85 F.2d 613 (Helburn v. Ballard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Helburn v. Ballard, 85 F.2d 613, 18 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 479, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4197, 18 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 479 (6th Cir. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It appearing that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was unauthorized by section 302 (b) of the Revenue Act of 1924, 43 Stat. 253, 304 (26 U.S.C.A. § 411 note) to include in the gross estate of the decedent, S. Thruston Ballard, any amount representing dower interest of appellee because, having taken under the will of the decedent, the appellee acquired no rights at the time of his death as dowress in his real estate, Perry v. Wilson, 183 Ky. 155, 162, 208 S.W. 776; Schuette v. Bowers, 40 F.(2d) 208, 211 (C.C.A.2); Randolph v. Craig, 267 F. 993, 996 (D.C.) ; see also Briscoe v. Craig, 32 F.(2d) 40 (C.C.A.6) ; and it appearing that the Commissioner was also unauthorized by section 302 (g) of the same statute (43 Stat. 305 [26 U.S.C.A. § 411 note]) to include the proceeds of the nine insurance policies involved in this appeal in the decedent’s gross estate because the interests of the beneficiaries of said policies were vested in them prior to his death and were in no way enlarged by reason thereof, Bingham v. U. S., 296 U.S. 211, 218, 56 S.Ct. 180, 80 L.Ed. 160; Industrial Trust Co. et al., Executors, v. U. S., 296 U.S. 220, 56 S.Ct. 182, 80 L.Ed. 191.

It is ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the District Court be, and the same is, affirmed.

Judgment of District Court affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

It appearing that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was unauthorized by section 302 (b) of the Revenue Act of 1924, 43 Stat. 253, 304 (26 U.S.C.A. § 411 note) to include in the gross estate of the decedent, S. Thruston Ballard, any amount representing dower interest of appellee because, having taken under the will of the decedent, the appellee acquired no rights at the time of his death as dowress in his real estate, Perry v. Wilson, 183 Ky. 155, 162, 208 S.W. 776; Schuette v. Bowers, 40 F.(2d) 208, 211 (C.C.A.2); Randolph v. Craig, 267 F. 993, 996 (D.C.) ; see also Briscoe v. Craig, 32 F.(2d) 40 (C.C.A.6) ; and it appearing that the Commissioner was also unauthorized by section 302 (g) of the same statute (43 Stat. 305 [26 U.S.C.A. § 411 note]) to include the proceeds of the nine insurance policies involved in this appeal in the decedent’s gross estate because the interests of the beneficiaries of said policies were vested in them prior to his death and were in no way enlarged by reason thereof, Bingham v. U. S., 296 U.S. 211, 218, 56 S.Ct. 180, 80 L.Ed. 160; Industrial Trust Co. et al., Executors, v. U. S., 296 U.S. 220, 56 S.Ct. 182, 80 L.Ed. 191.

It is ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the District Court be, and the same is, affirmed.

Judgment of District Court affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 F.2d 613, 18 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 479, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4197, 18 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helburn-v-ballard-ca6-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack