Joachim v. Commissioner

22 T.C. 875, 1954 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 142
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJuly 14, 1954
DocketDocket No. 41637
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 22 T.C. 875 (Joachim 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
Joachim v. Commissioner, 22 T.C. 875, 1954 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 142 (tax 1954).

Opinion

OPINION.

Eaum, Judge:

The respondent determined a deficiency of $35,213.19 in estate tax of the estate of Lina Joachim, hereinafter referred to as the decedent. The issue is whether the amount of $168,361.80, which represented the sole asset in her estate, was exempt from tax under section 863(b) of the Internal Eevenue Code, as moneys deposited with a bank by “or for” the decedent. All of the facts have been stipulated and are hereby found accordingly.

The decedent died May -28, 1943, in a German concentration camp. At all times material herein she was a nonresident alien, and was not engaged in business in the United States.

Max E. Bashford, a brother of the decedent, died domiciled in New York on December 27, 1935. He had established a testamentary trust with a corpus of $600,000. The income from the trust was payable to Nellie West Bashford, his wife, during her lifetime, and the remainder was to go to- five persons among whom were Lina Joachim and another sister, Eosa Lesser. Nellie West Bashford died on September 18,1941.

On July 1, 1942, the City Bank Farmers Trust Company of New York filed its account as trustee of the estate of Max E. Bashford. On July 3, 1942, James A- Foley, Surrogate of the Surrogate’s Court of New York County, under the authority of section 269 of the New York Surrogate’s Court Act,1 signed a decree which contained the following provisions:

And it further appearing that said remaindermen Lina Joachim and Rosa Lesser reside in enemy or enemy occupied territory; it is
Further ordered, adjudged and decreed that out of the balance of principal and income so found as above remaining in its hands in Section I of said account said accountant pay into this Court by paying the Treasurer of the City of New York the sum of One Hundred Sixteen Thousand, Five Hundred Twenty-four and 07/100 Dollars ($116,524.07) (less any expenses incurred in connection with the making of said payment and deposit) for the benefit of Lina Joachim or such other person or persons who may hereafter appear to be entitled thereto in full payment and satisfaction of the balance of principal and income distributable to said Lina Joachim as a remainderman of the trust created under paragraph Fourth of the decedent’s will, upon obtaining such Treasury Department license, if any, as may be required under Executive Order No. 8389, as amended, and it is
****** *
Ordered, adjudged and decreed that out of the balance of principal and income so found as above remaining in its hands in Section II of said account, said accountant pay into this Court, by paying the Treasurer of the City of New York, the sum of Fifty-One Thousand, Eight Hundred Fifty-Nine and 24/100 Dollars ($51,859.24), (less any expenses incurred in connection with the making of said payment and deposit) for the benefit of Lina Joachim or such other person or persons who may hereafter appear to be entitled thereto in full payment and satisfaction of the balance of principal and income distributable to said Lina Joachim as income beneficiary and remainderman of the trust created by paragraph Fifth of said will upon obtaining such Treasury Department license, if any, as may be required under Executive Order No. 8389, as amended.

Pursuant to this decree, on or about August 12, 1942, the Treasurer of the City of New York in accordance with the New York City Charter and ordinances received $336, 734.92, of which $168,361.80 was held for Lina Joachim and $168,373.12 for Rosa Lesser, and so noted for both of them on his records. On August 13, 1942, he deposited the foregoing $336,734.92 in the Manufacturers Trust Company, a banking institution doing business in the city of New York, in a separate account entitled: “The Treasurer of the City of New York Court and Trust Funds, Special Account (Time).”

Before Lina Joachim’s death, and on or about December 11, 1942, the Alien Property Custodian of the United States issued Vesting Order No. 490 with respect to her remainder interest in the trust. Vesting Order No. 490 was issued pursuant to the authority of the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended, and executive orders pertaining to that Act. The decree of the Surrogate’s Court of July 3, 1942, was amended on February 4, 1Q44, and authorized the withdrawal by the Custodian of the $168,361.80, together with accrued interest, less lawful charges and commissions of the city treasurer. On or about March 21, 1944, the Alien Property Custodian received these funds.

In'May of 1951, $81,467.21 was paid to Richard H. Joachim, the sole beneficiary of the decedent, by the Attorney General under the author-it.y of section 32 of the Trading with the Enemy Act. The balance remaining in the vested fund was reserved for tax purposes. In August 1951, Richard H. Joachim filed with the collector of internal revenue for the second district of New York a nonresident alien’s estate tax return (United States Treasury Form 706 NA). The return as filed reported, for information purposes, the decedent’s gross estate to be $168,361.80, claiming that, by virtue of section 863 (b) of the Internal Revenue Code,2 the estate was not subject to Federal estate tax.3 The deficiency results from the respondent’s determination that “the amount of $168,361.80 on deposit with the Manufacturers Trust Co.”.was includible in decedent’s gross estate.

The respondent contends that section 863 (b) is not applicable because at the time of the decedent’s death the fund was held, not for her, but for the United States. He urges that this section applies only to moneys in which a decedent had an interest at the time of death; that at the time of her death the fund no longer belonged to her; that it could be deposited only for the person who owned it; and that because of the vesting order issued on December 11, 1942, the United States was the owner of the fund on May 28, 1943, the date of decedent’s death, and would be the only “person” for whom the fund could be on deposit. He also urg'es that even during the period immediately prior to the issuance of the vesting order, the relationship between the decedent and the Manufacturers Trust Company was not of such character as would entitle the estate to the benefits afforded by section 863 (b).

The petitioner contends that it is wholly immaterial whether title to the fund was in the United States at the time of the decedent’s death in view of section 36 of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 60 Stat. 929,4 which provides in substance that, for tax purposes, the decedent’s property is to be considered as if no vesting had taken place; that so considered the cash fund was held for decedent at the time of her death in the Manufacturers Trust Company in the name of the Treasurer of the City of New York; and that it is, therefore, net to be deemed property within the United States subject to estate tax under the provisions of section 868 (b).

Under the provisions of Vesting Order No. 490 all right, title, interest, and claim of any kind of the decedent became vested in the Custodian to be held, used, sold, or otherwise disposed of in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States.

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

Related

Estate of Ogarrio (Daguerre) v. Commissioner
40 T.C. 242 (U.S. Tax Court, 1963)
Waldstein v. Commissioner
35 T.C. 156 (U.S. Tax Court, 1960)
Oei Tjong Swan v. Commissioner
24 T.C. 829 (U.S. Tax Court, 1955)
Joachim v. Commissioner
22 T.C. 875 (U.S. Tax Court, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 T.C. 875, 1954 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joachim-v-commissioner-tax-1954.