Leon Rosenfield, as Administrator, D.B.N.C.T.A. Of Estate of George D. Beaston, Deceased v. United States

254 F.2d 940, 1 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2169, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5654
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedMay 12, 1958
Docket12463
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 254 F.2d 940 (Leon Rosenfield, as Administrator, D.B.N.C.T.A. Of Estate of George D. Beaston, Deceased v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Leon Rosenfield, as Administrator, D.B.N.C.T.A. Of Estate of George D. Beaston, Deceased v. United States, 254 F.2d 940, 1 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2169, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5654 (3d Cir. 1958).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Internal Revenue Code of 1939 permits the representative of an estate the election of evaluating the assets in the gross estate either as of the date of death or one year after death. 26 U.S.C. § 811 (1952 ed.). Section 81.11 of Treasury Regulation 105 provides that “In no case may the election be exercised, or a previous election changed, after the expiration of the time for the filing of the return.”

The administrator d. b. n. c. t. a. in this case seeks a refund of additional estate tax assessed by the Commissioner. The additional tax was the result of the original executor’s apparent election manifested on the estate’s return to have the assets valued one year from date of death. It is the administrator’s argument here that the apparent election was not binding and irrevocable because it was made upon a mistake as to the consequences of that election.

The district court entered judgment for defendant, relying on Section 81.11 of Treasury Regulation 105 and analogous tax cases denying the right to change the election after date for filing has passed. D.C.E.D.Pa.1957, 156 F.Supp. 780. The election here was made upon a full disclosure of facts. It is therefore binding, and we can add nothing to the opinion of the district court.

• The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

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

Related

Estate of Mapes v. Comm'r
99 T.C. No. 27 (U.S. Tax Court, 1992)
Plumb v. Commissioner
97 T.C. No. 44 (U.S. Tax Court, 1991)
West v. United States
701 F. Supp. 695 (W.D. Arkansas, 1988)
Maid-Rite Steak Co., Inc. v. United States
643 F. Supp. 1162 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1986)
Estate of Silvester v. Commissioner
1977 T.C. Memo. 439 (U.S. Tax Court, 1977)
Gimbel Bros. v. United States
535 F.2d 14 (Court of Claims, 1976)
Estate of Ryan v. Commissioner
62 T.C. No. 2 (U.S. Tax Court, 1974)
Dougherty v. Commissioner
61 T.C. No. 76 (U.S. Tax Court, 1974)
Estate of Bradley v. Commissioner
1974 T.C. Memo. 17 (U.S. Tax Court, 1974)
Estate of Stamos v. Commissioner
55 T.C. 468 (U.S. Tax Court, 1970)
Conlorez Corp. v. Commissioner
51 T.C. 467 (U.S. Tax Court, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
254 F.2d 940, 1 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2169, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leon-rosenfield-as-administrator-dbncta-of-estate-of-george-d-ca3-1958.