Thomson v. Helvering

Eighth Circuit

Thomson v. Helvering

114 F.2d 607, 25 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 678, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 3179

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 21, 1940

DocketNo. 11528

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 114 F.2d 607 (Thomson v. Helvering) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thomson v. Helvering, 114 F.2d 607, 25 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 678, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 3179 (8th Cir. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner challenges a determination by the Board of Tax Appeals that income received by her in 1934, as trustee of two short-term, irrevocable family trusts created by her for the benefit of her husband, was her income for purposes of taxation.

The trusts created by petitioner were similar to the trust considered by this Court in Clifford v. Helvering, 8 Cir., 105 F.2d 586. At the time petitioner filed her brief, the ruling in that case would, no doubt, have entitled her to a reversal of the Board’s decision. Since that time, however, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331, 60 S.Ct. 554, 84 L.Ed. -, reversed our decision in Clifford v. Helvering and held that the trust income of the short-term family trust created by Clifford was sufficiently his income to be taxable to him under § 22(a) of the Revenue Act of 1934, 26 U.S.C.A.Int.Rev.Acts, page 669. Since Helvering v. Clifford was decided, we have ruled that the income of trusts such as those here involved is taxable to the person creating the trusts. Penn v. Commissioner, 8 Cir., 109 F.2d 954, and Helvering v. Hormel, 8 Cir., 111 F.2d 1. The contention that respondent is precluded from invoking § 22(a) because it was not relied upon before the Bodrd must be ruled against petitioner for the reasons stated in the opinion in the case last cited (see page 5 of 111 F.2d).

The decision of the Board is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner challenges a determination by the Board of Tax Appeals that income received by her in 1934, as trustee of two short-term, irrevocable family trusts created by her for the benefit of her husband, was her income for purposes of taxation.

The trusts created by petitioner were similar to the trust considered by this Court in Clifford v. Helvering, 8 Cir., 105 F.2d 586. At the time petitioner filed her brief, the ruling in that case would, no doubt, have entitled her to a reversal of the Board’s decision. Since that time, however, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331, 60 S.Ct. 554, 84 L.Ed. -, reversed our decision in Clifford v. Helvering and held that the trust income of the short-term family trust created by Clifford was sufficiently his income to be taxable to him under § 22(a) of the Revenue Act of 1934, 26 U.S.C.A.Int.Rev.Acts, page 669. Since Helvering v. Clifford was decided, we have ruled that the income of trusts such as those here involved is taxable to the person creating the trusts. Penn v. Commissioner, 8 Cir., 109 F.2d 954, and Helvering v. Hormel, 8 Cir., 111 F.2d 1. The contention that respondent is precluded from invoking § 22(a) because it was not relied upon before the Bodrd must be ruled against petitioner for the reasons stated in the opinion in the case last cited (see page 5 of 111 F.2d).

The decision of the Board is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 F.2d 607, 25 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 678, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 3179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomson-v-helvering-ca8-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack