Kurz v. United States

Second Circuit

Kurz v. United States

254 F.2d 811

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 30, 1958

DocketNo. 332, Docket 24952

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 254 F.2d 811 (Kurz v. United States) 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

Kurz v. United States, 254 F.2d 811 (2d Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Here the executors under a will are claiming a refund of estate taxes paid by them on the value of a trust estate as to which their testator had retained a power of revocation. They argue that this trust for the benefit of children carried into effect only a provision of a separation agreement between him and his wife which, indeed, called for the trust, [812]*812but without power of revocation. As District Judge Palmieri points out, however, in his well reasoned opinion, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 156 F.Supp. 99, it is both good sense and good law that these closely integrated and nearly contemporaneous documents be construed together, thus showing a retained power which makes the corpus taxable under I.R.C.1939, § 811(d)(2). We affirm on the opinion below.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Here the executors under a will are claiming a refund of estate taxes paid by them on the value of a trust estate as to which their testator had retained a power of revocation. They argue that this trust for the benefit of children carried into effect only a provision of a separation agreement between him and his wife which, indeed, called for the trust, [812]*812but without power of revocation. As District Judge Palmieri points out, however, in his well reasoned opinion, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 156 F.Supp. 99, it is both good sense and good law that these closely integrated and nearly contemporaneous documents be construed together, thus showing a retained power which makes the corpus taxable under I.R.C.1939, § 811(d)(2). We affirm on the opinion below.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 F.2d 811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kurz-v-united-states-ca2-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack