Alston v. United States
| Decision Date | 23 July 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 21402.,21402. |
| Citation | 349 F.2d 87 |
| Parties | Philip H. ALSTON, Jr., and the Citizens and Southern National Bank, Executors of the Estate of Charles Loridans, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Francis Shackelford, James E. Thomas, Arnold C. Moore, Alston, Miller & Gaines, Atlanta, Ga., for appellants.
Benjamin M. Parker, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Robert N. Anderson, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Charles L. Goodson, U. S. Atty., Slaton Clemmons, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and MOORE* and BELL, Circuit Judges.
This suit was brought by the executors of the Estate of Charles Loridans (the executors) to obtain a refund of $49,071.14 paid to the United States of America (the Government) because of an asserted estate tax deficiency. Upon motion by the executors and cross-motion by the Government for summary judgment, the trial court found in favor of the Government. 228 F.Supp. 216 (N.D.Ga., 1964). The executors appeal. The facts are not in dispute.
On June 9, 1956, Charles Loridans died, a resident of Atlanta, Georgia. By will, after certain specific bequests to nieces and nephews, the residue of the estate was left to the Charles Loridans Foundation, Inc., a duly qualified charitable foundation. In the estate tax return filed by the executors on September 6, 1957, a gross estate of $5,923,446.89 was reported from which were deducted funeral and administration ($1,042.41) expenses, debts, specific bequests, charitable and non-charitable, and estate and death taxes, leaving an amount, entitled "Residue Claimed for Charitable Deduction", of $4,402,964.04.
On September 9, 1957, the executors filed the estate's income tax return wherein they deducted as "administration expenses" items totalling $66,827.33. The Citizens and Southern National Bank (the Bank), a co-executor which maintained the estate's books, charged this amount to the estate's principal account. However, after the Commissioner had asserted on January 26, 1960, an estate tax deficiency because of the failure to deduct these administration expenses from the gross estate in computing the residue, the Bank on February 26, 1960, made a reversing entry on its books to show a charge to estate income instead of principal. Thereafter, the executors paid the asserted deficiency and instituted this suit to recover the payment.
The pertinent statutes and applicable decisions clearly indicate affirmance of the judgment in favor of the Government. Section 2051 of the Code1 defines the value of the "taxable estate" as "determined by deducting from the value of the gross estate the exemption and deductions provided for in this part." Amongst these deductions listed in order (Sec. 2053) are "amounts (1) for funeral expenses, (2) for administration expenses, (3) for claims against the estate, and —." From the gross estate also are to be deducted bequests to charitable corporations.
Although there is no specific reference in the Georgia statutes to administration expenses as such, there are provisions that, unless otherwise directed, debts should be paid out of the residuum (Georgia Code Annotated, Sec. 113-821) and that "commissions are part of the expense of administration, and shall be paid from the general estate, if any." (Sec. 113-2001).
The Code defines the value of the gross estate as "the value at the time of his death —" (Sec. 2031). This court has held that "the date of the decedent's death is the time as of which the situation must be viewed. citing cases" and that "at the decedent's death his estate had the obligation of paying estate taxes, debts, charges and expenses of administration." Ballantine v. Tomlinson, 293 F.2d 311, at 312 (5 Cir., 1961). Although the amount of the marital deduction was the specific problem at issue in Ballantine, the estate tax had to be resolved in relation to the adjusted gross estate which the court declared "must be reduced by the amount of the charges against it even though those charges be met from another source." Id. at 313. Applying this principle here, administration expenses must be deducted from the gross estate even though paid out of post-mortem income.
Conversely, Waldrop v. United States, 137 F.Supp. 753, 756, 133 Ct.Cl. 902 (1956). That the Foundation would be the recipient of the income is immaterial to the computation of the gross estate because "the statutory scheme seems to contemplate separate treatment of this asset income, though it will ultimately go to the same persons who, by the will or the law of descent, get the statutory `gross estate'." Waldrop, supra, at 756. The effect of yielding to the executors' argument here would be to increase the amount of the gross estate by the amount of post-mortem income — a result directly contrary to the statutory definition of gross estate. Nor should the circumstance that the Foundation would receive the income alter the applicable legal principles. Were there an intervening life interest, the income of such a beneficiary could not be used to pay administration expenses and thus enlarge the residue destined for another.
The Loridans will does not specify the source from which pre-residue items must be met, but both Georgia statute and Georgia decisions leave no doubt as to the correct answer. The statute (Sec. 113-821) provides that "Unless otherwise directed, the debts of the testator should be paid out of the residuum." "Priority of debts" is clearly stated (Sec. 113-1508). ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Comm'r of Internal Revenue v. Hubert
...Government Appellee, in Ballantine v. Tomlinson, No. 18,736 (C.A.5 1961), p. 18; Brief for Government Appellee, in Alston v. United States, No. 21,402 (C.A.5 1965), p. 15. B The Commissioner contends that Treasury Regulation §20.2056(b)-4(a), which interprets §2056(b)(4)(B), mandates the co......
-
C&S/Sovran Trust Co.(Georgia), N.A. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Hubert)
...does not reduce the marital deduction. However, income earned on estate property is not included in the gross estate. Alston v. United States, 349 F.2d 87 (5th Cir.1965). As a result, under section 2056(a), such income does not lead to an increase in the amount of the marital deduction requ......
-
River Oaks Trust Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Warren)
...is not included in gross estate for estate tax purposes. Bowes v. United States, 593 F.2d 272 (7th Cir. 1979); Alston v. United States, 349 F.2d 87, 88 (5th Cir. 1965); Estate of Horne v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 100, 105 (1988). The value of the decedent's gross estate is then reduced by cert......
-
Bowes v. U.S., 78-1604
...and is not taxable as such. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. United States, 465 F.2d 760, 764-65 (2d Cir. 1972); Alston v. United States, 349 F.2d 87, 88-89 (5th Cir. 1965). Rather, it is taxable to the estate itself as income. I.R.C. § 641(a)(3). Not being includable in the gross estate, po......
-
Federal Taxation - Timothy J. Peaden, Ben E. Muraskin, and James A. Lawton
...expense to income allowed by state law did not reduce the charitable deduction). 68. 63 F.3d at 1084. Cf. Alston v. United States, 349 F.2d 87 (5th Cir. 1965) (although permitted by Georgia law, there was no provision in the will for the payment of the administration expenses); Ballantine v......