Rose v. Commissioner

4 T.C.M. 18, 1945 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 356
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJanuary 4, 1945
DocketDocket Nos. 111270, 2492.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 4 T.C.M. 18 (Rose 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
Rose v. Commissioner, 4 T.C.M. 18, 1945 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 356 (tax 1945).

Opinion

Dave Rose v. Commissioner. David Rose v. Commissioner.
Rose v. Commissioner
Docket Nos. 111270, 2492.
United States Tax Court
1945 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 356; 4 T.C.M. (CCH) 18; T.C.M. (RIA) 45006;
January 4, 1945
John T. Riley, Esq., and Darius F. Johnson, Esq., for the petitioner. B. M. Coon, Esq., for the respondent.

HILL

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

HILL, Judge: The Commissioner determined deficiencies in income tax and a penalty as follows:

Docket No.YearDeficiencyPenalty
1112701939$1,951.06$1,333.37
249219401,693.14
19411,594.83

The first question, which turns on the construction of an antenuptial agreement is, what was petitioner's community share of his wife's earnings. The second question is as to the reasonableness of the salary paid by petitioner to his brother. The third question is whether petitioner incurred the 25 percent penalty provided by section 291 of the Internal Revenue Code for failure to file a proper return*357 for 1939.

Findings of Fact

The petitioner, David Rose, was a resident of Hollywood, California, during the taxable years 1939, 1940 and 1941. His returns for those years were filed with the collector of internal revenue for the sixth collection district of California. He was married to Margie Yvonne Reed, known as Martha Raye, on October 8, 1938. They separated and a property agreement was made on April 13, 1940, by which petitioner relinquished all claims to Martha Raye's earnings. Prior to the date of his entry into the Army and during the years in question his occupation was music composer and orchestra leader.

Martha's mother, Peg Raye, had brought Martha up from childhood for a theatrical career and continued through the years in question to be her tutor and business manager. Prior to and in contemplation of the marriage of Martha to the petitioner, Martha and her mother entered into a written agreement by which Martha assigned 40 percent of her income to her mother, thus doubling the amount under an earlier agreement. This instrument, which was approved by petitioner, reads as follows:

"THIS AGREEMENT, made this 26th day of September, 1938, by and between MARGIE YVONNE*358 REED, also known as MARTHA RAYE, Party of the First Part, and MAYBELLE HOOPER BALMA, also known as PEG RAYE, Party of the Second Part,

WITNESSETH:

"WHEREAS, the parties hereto are mother and daughter and have always enjoyed a close and confidential relationship with each other; and

"WHEREAS, the Party of the First Part has achieved certain fame and success in the motion picture, theatrical and radio world and does ascribe her success therein to the efforts, the assistance, the instruction and the care of her mother; and

"WHEREAS, on the 30th day of June, 1938, the parties hereto entered into an agreement wherein Margie Yvonne Reed, also known as Martha Raye, Party of the First Part, did assign, set over and give unto Maybelle Hooper Balma, also known as Peg Raye, Party of the Second Part herein, for a consideration set forth in said contract, a sum equal to twenty per cent (20%) of the gross earnings, emoluments and compensations earned and received by Party of the First Part, from the date of said agreement to the time of the death of Party of the Second Part; and

"WHEREAS, the said Party of the First Part is desirous of showing, in a more substantial manner than is evidenced*359 by the agreement between the parties hereto dated June 30, 1938, her appreciation of the assistance and care which has been given to her by her mother, the Party of the Second Part;

"NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, paid by the Party of the Second Part to the Party of the First Part, love and affection entertained by the Party of the First Part for the Party of the Second Part, and other valuable considerations, it is hereby agreed:

"That the Party of the First Part does, irrevocably and permanently, set over, assign and grant unto Party of the Second Part, for the balance of the natural life of the Party of the Second Part, a sum equal to forty per cent (40%) of the gross earnings, emoluments and compensations earned and received by the Party of the First Part from the date hereof to the time of the death of the Party of the Second Part from any activities in which the Party of the First Part may engage in connection with motion picture, theatrical or radio employment, or otherwise.

"That the said amount of forty per cent (40%) will be payable to the Party of the Second Part on the first day of each and*360 every month by the Party of the First Part or the agents or others entrusted with the care and custody of the earnings of the Party of the First Part; and said custodians of any of the earnings of Party of the First Part are hereby instructed to deliver to the said Party of the Second Part forty per cent (40%) of any and all of the gross earnings, emoluments, and compensations earned and received by Party of the First Part, from the date hereof to the time of the death of Party of the Second Part, from any activities in which Party of the First Part may engage in connection with motion pictures, theatrical or radio employment, or otherwise.

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

Related

Flinchbaugh v. Commissioner
1 T.C. 653 (U.S. Tax Court, 1943)
Carnie-Goudie Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner
18 B.T.A. 893 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1930)
Burns v. Commissioner
47 B.T.A. 34 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1942)
Lassing v. James
40 P. 534 (California Supreme Court, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 T.C.M. 18, 1945 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-commissioner-tax-1945.