James v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Second Circuit

James v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

148 F.2d 236, 33 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 913, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 4315

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 23, 1945

Docket229

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 148 F.2d 236 (James v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) 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

James v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 148 F.2d 236, 33 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 913, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 4315 (2d Cir. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the respondent erroneously valued the stock which petitioner transferred by gift to his son. The petitioner contends here, as he did before the Tax Court, that the value of the stock must be limited to the price at which each of the stockholders of the corporation had agreed to offer it to the others in case he should at any time wish to sell any of his stock. The depressive effect of the restrictive agreement was one of the factors considered by the respondent in fixing the value of the gift but he contended that he was not limited by the agreement to the price fixed therein; and the Tax Court so ruled. Its ruling accords with the recent decision of this court in Commissioner v. McCann, 2 Cir., 146 F.2d 385. On the authority of that case the decision must be affirmed. The commissioner having made an allowance for the restrictive agreement, the taxpayer had the burden of proving the allowance insufficient, but he offered no evidence on that issue. Consequently the finding of value must stand.

Decision affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the respondent erroneously valued the stock which petitioner transferred by gift to his son. The petitioner contends here, as he did before the Tax Court, that the value of the stock must be limited to the price at which each of the stockholders of the corporation had agreed to offer it to the others in case he should at any time wish to sell any of his stock. The depressive effect of the restrictive agreement was one of the factors considered by the respondent in fixing the value of the gift but he contended that he was not limited by the agreement to the price fixed therein; and the Tax Court so ruled. Its ruling accords with the recent decision of this court in Commissioner v. McCann, 2 Cir., 146 F.2d 385. On the authority of that case the decision must be affirmed. The commissioner having made an allowance for the restrictive agreement, the taxpayer had the burden of proving the allowance insufficient, but he offered no evidence on that issue. Consequently the finding of value must stand.

Decision affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 F.2d 236, 33 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 913, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 4315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca2-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack