Loggie v. Thomas

Fifth Circuit

Loggie v. Thomas

152 F.2d 636, 34 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 637, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 4116

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 10, 1945

Docket11449

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 152 F.2d 636 (Loggie v. Thomas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Loggie v. Thomas, 152 F.2d 636, 34 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 637, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 4116 (5th Cir. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

WALLER, Circuit Judge.

The chief question involved in this case is whether or not a declaratory judgment of a state court, rendered after a federal income tax liability had accrued, in a case in which neither the Collector nor the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was a party, is res judicata in a suit in the Federal Court involving such income tax liability.

The income tax consequences to donors or to trustees are not always controlled by the sole incidence of the naked legal title. See Helvering, Commissioner, v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331, 60 S.Ct. 554, 84 L.Ed. 788; Helvering, Commissioner, v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112, 61 S.Ct. 144, 85 L.Ed. 751, 131 A.L.R. 655; Harrison v. Schaffner, 312 U.S. 579, 61 S.Ct. 759, 85 L.Ed. 1055; Dupont v. Com’r of Internal Revenue, 289 U.S. 685, 53 S.Ct. 766, 77 L.Ed. 1447. The fact, therefore, that the state court has rendered a declaratory judgment in reference to the legal title to property as between trustee and cestuis que trust does not foreclose an inquiry as to the liability of the trustee for taxes on the income from the same property involved in the state court judgment. See Sewell v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 5 Cir., 151 F.2d 765.

The Appellant still had the power to use and control the income according to her own discretion, and under the applicable decisions she is liable for the tax as held by the Court below.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

WALLER, Circuit Judge.

The chief question involved in this case is whether or not a declaratory judgment of a state court, rendered after a federal income tax liability had accrued, in a case in which neither the Collector nor the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was a party, is res judicata in a suit in the Federal Court involving such income tax liability.

The income tax consequences to donors or to trustees are not always controlled by the sole incidence of the naked legal title. See Helvering, Commissioner, v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331, 60 S.Ct. 554, 84 L.Ed. 788; Helvering, Commissioner, v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112, 61 S.Ct. 144, 85 L.Ed. 751, 131 A.L.R. 655; Harrison v. Schaffner, 312 U.S. 579, 61 S.Ct. 759, 85 L.Ed. 1055; Dupont v. Com’r of Internal Revenue, 289 U.S. 685, 53 S.Ct. 766, 77 L.Ed. 1447. The fact, therefore, that the state court has rendered a declaratory judgment in reference to the legal title to property as between trustee and cestuis que trust does not foreclose an inquiry as to the liability of the trustee for taxes on the income from the same property involved in the state court judgment. See Sewell v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 5 Cir., 151 F.2d 765.

The Appellant still had the power to use and control the income according to her own discretion, and under the applicable decisions she is liable for the tax as held by the Court below.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 F.2d 636, 34 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 637, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 4116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loggie-v-thomas-ca5-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack