Spaulding v. Commissioner

27 T.C. 479, 1956 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 16
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedDecember 12, 1956
DocketDocket Nos. 50395, 52050, 52055
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 27 T.C. 479 (Spaulding 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
Spaulding v. Commissioner, 27 T.C. 479, 1956 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 16 (tax 1956).

Opinion

PdeRCe, Judge:

The respondent determined transferee liabilities in respect of income taxes, and also deficiencies in gift tax and additions to gift tax for failure to file returns, as follows:

[[Image here]]
[[Image here]]

All the cases identified by the above-mentioned docket numbers were consolidated for trial.

The issues for decision are:

(1) Whether, in the case of each of the trusts here involved, the trustee is liable as a transferee of assets of Joe Louis Barrow, for certain portions of the latter’s undisputed delinquent income taxes, on the ground that Barrow was the actual donor of the corpus of each of said trusts; and, if so, whether assessment of such transferee liabilities is barred by the statute of limitations.

(2) In the alternative, whether the petitioner Marva Trotter Barrow Spaulding, the former wife of Joe Louis Barrow, was the actual donor of the corpus of each of said trusts and is, by reason thereof, liable for gift taxes on the transfer of such corpus and also for additions to tax for failure to file gift tax returns.

FINDINGS OF FACT.

The petitioner the First National Bank of Chicago, as trustee, is, in the case of each of the two trusts here involved, the alleged transferee of assets of Joseph Louis Barrow, also known as Joe Louis Barrow and as Joe Louis (hereinafter called Louis). Louis was the heavyweight boxing champion of the world for a period of about 11 years beginning in June 1937. He filed an individual income tax return for each of the years 1946, 1947, and 1948, with the collector of internal revenue for the third district of New York; and he also filed such a return for the year 1949 with the collector of internal revenue for the first district of Illinois. None of the above-mentioned unpaid deficiencies in his income taxes for said years (as distinguished from transferee liabilities concerning the same) is here in dispute.

The petitioner Marva Trotter Barrow Spaulding (hereinafter called Marva), is the former wife of Louis. She filed no gift tax return for either of the years 1947 or 1949.

Marva and Louis were twice married and twice divorced. Their first marriage, on September 24, 1935, ended in divorce on March 27, 1945. Thereafter, they were remarried in 1946; and were divorced for the second time on February 15, 1949. During their first marriage, a daughter, Jacqueline Barrow, was born to them on February 8, 1943. And during their second marriage, a son, Joseph Louis Barrow, Jr. (hereinafter called Joe Louis, Jr.), was born to them on May 28, 1947.

Facts re Trust No. S6358, Dated November 21, 1947

Louis entered the Army in 1942, and he continued to serve in the Armed Forces until about October 1,1945. In the early part of 1945, while he was so serving, Marva filed suit for divorce from him. During the pendency of this suit, Louis told Marva that he was not financially able to make a substantial property settlement with her; and they executed concurrently, under date of March 26,1945, two written agreements (hereinafter called, respectively, the settlement agreement and the manager’s contract).

The settlement agreement provided in substance and so far as here material:

That, whereas the parties had agreed upon a settlement of all their marital rights and obligations, each of the parties accepted the provisions of such agreement in lieu of all dower rights; in lieu of all claims of each against the other for alimony, maintenance, and support; and also in full satisfaction of other claims and demands of each against the other, except the obligations imposed by such agreement;

That Louis relinquished to Marva all his right, title, and interest in the household furnishings and effects, other than his personal effects, and also in all bank accounts standing in Marva’s name;

That Marva acknowledged that she had no right, title, or interest whatsoever in any property held in the name of Louis; or in any property or money held in the name of any person, firm, or corporation, as trustee for him;

That Marva would have the care and custody of their minor daughter Jacqueline, subject to certain consultation and visitation rights in Louis; and that Louis would pay her $200 per month for the child’s support;

That, in lieu of any further provision for the maintenance, support, and alimony of Marva, Louis would execute simultaneously with such settlement agreement, the manager’s contract, of which a copy was attached and made a part of the settlement agreement; and

That Marva, in the event she were granted a decree of divorce in the pending divorce proceeding, would, in consideration of said covenants and agreements, agree:

To create a trust fund in a suitable Chicago Bant or Trust Company, to be mutually agreed upon, to be in tbe name of Joe Louis Barrow and Marva Trotter Barrow for tbe benefit of JACQUELINE BARROW, the minor child of the parties hereto, and to pay into the said trust fund a sum equal to fifty per cent (50%) of all monies received by the said MARTA TROTTER BARROW growing out of the manager’s contract, heretofore referred to and made a part hereof.

It was further mutually agreed that, if at any time during the term of such manager’s contract there should be any breach or default by Marva in performing the above-mentioned provisions relating to the minor child, then such manager’s contract could, at the option .of Louis, be immediately revoked and terminated by him.

The said manager’s contract, which was physically attached to and made a part of the settlement agreement, provided in substance and so far as here material:

That Louis engaged Marva as his business manager, or co-manager, for a period of 5 years to commence when Louis received his discharge from the Army, but in any event not earlier than June 1, 1945;

That Marva agreed to exert herself for the profit, benefit, and advantage of Louis, and to perform such duties as are generally required of a manager of a professional boxer;

That Marva understood that Louis was then indebted to the Government of the United States and to other named creditors in an aggregate amount which might exceed $200,000; and that no money should be deemed earned, due, and owing to her under the manager’s contract until after the aggregate amount of said indebtedness had first been deducted and paid from the moneys derived by Louis from professional boxing contests and other sources in connection therewith ;

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

Related

Hunt v. Commissioner
1988 T.C. Memo. 360 (U.S. Tax Court, 1988)
Du Pont v. Commissioner
1978 T.C. Memo. 16 (U.S. Tax Court, 1978)
Alexander v. Commissioner
61 T.C. No. 30 (U.S. Tax Court, 1973)
Collegiate Cap & Gown Co. v. Commissioner
59 T.C. No. 43 (U.S. Tax Court, 1972)
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Commissioner
55 T.C. 649 (U.S. Tax Court, 1971)
Hamar v. Commissioner
42 T.C. 867 (U.S. Tax Court, 1964)
Sharp v. Commissioner
35 T.C. 1168 (U.S. Tax Court, 1961)
Spaulding v. Commissioner
27 T.C. 479 (U.S. Tax Court, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 T.C. 479, 1956 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spaulding-v-commissioner-tax-1956.