Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles v. Commissioner

36 B.T.A. 72

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedJune 8, 1937

DocketDocket No. 86064

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 36 B.T.A. 72 (Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Board of Tax Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles v. Commissioner, 36 B.T.A. 72 (bta 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

[73]*73OPINION.

Steenhagen:

The petitioner is trustee of the testamentary trust to which the real property was devised: Although it acquired possession in April 1932, its ownership related back to the date of the testator’s death, notwithstanding the intervening administration of the decedent’s estate. Deering’s Probate Code of California, sec. 300; In re O'Connor's Estate, 2 Cal. App. 470; 84 Pac. 317; In re Rawitzer's Estate, 175 Cal. 585; 166 Pac. 581; Blair v. Hazzard, 158 Cal. 721; 112 Pac. 298. See Brewster v. Gage, 280 U. S. 327.

The taxes in question covered the period beginning July 1, 1931, and ending June 30, 1933, and were therefore in the clearest sense the petitioner’s taxes—taxes on its own property. Petitioner alone was chargeable with them, and since its accounts and returns were on the basis of receipts and disbursements, it was entitled to deduct them when it paid them.

Judgment will be entered for the petitioner.

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

[73]*73OPINION.

Steenhagen:

The petitioner is trustee of the testamentary trust to which the real property was devised: Although it acquired possession in April 1932, its ownership related back to the date of the testator’s death, notwithstanding the intervening administration of the decedent’s estate. Deering’s Probate Code of California, sec. 300; In re O'Connor's Estate, 2 Cal. App. 470; 84 Pac. 317; In re Rawitzer's Estate, 175 Cal. 585; 166 Pac. 581; Blair v. Hazzard, 158 Cal. 721; 112 Pac. 298. See Brewster v. Gage, 280 U. S. 327.

The taxes in question covered the period beginning July 1, 1931, and ending June 30, 1933, and were therefore in the clearest sense the petitioner’s taxes—taxes on its own property. Petitioner alone was chargeable with them, and since its accounts and returns were on the basis of receipts and disbursements, it was entitled to deduct them when it paid them.

Judgment will be entered for the petitioner.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 B.T.A. 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/security-first-national-bank-of-los-angeles-v-commissioner-bta-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack