Bull v. United States

Decision Date05 March 1934
Docket NumberNo. L—383.,L—383.
Citation6 F. Supp. 141
PartiesBULL v. UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. Claims Court

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

David A. Buckley, Jr., of Washington, D. C. (Lawrence P. Mattingly, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for plaintiff.

Elizabeth B. Davis, John A. Rees, and W. W. Scott, all of Washington, D. C., for the United States.

Before BOOTH, Chief Justice, and GREEN, LITTLETON, WILLIAMS, and WHALEY, Judges.

LITTLETON, Judge.

At the time of his death on February 13, 1920, decedent was a member of a partnership operating under an agreement containing a provision that in the event of death of a partner the surviving partners, with the consent of the executor, should be at liberty to continue the business for a stated time and the estate of the deceased partner might participate in the gains or losses of the business for such period to the same extent as the deceased partner would have participated if living.

The decedent's share of the partnership profits from January 1 to the date of his death on February 13, 1920, was $24,124.20, and the amount of the profits to which he would have been entitled for the remainder of that year, had he lived and continued a member of the partnership, would have been $212,718.79, which the estate received. Of the latter amount $200,117.09 was received by the estate during 1920 and the balance was received in 1921. The Commissioner included the full amount of the profits from February 13 to December 31, 1920, ultimately received by the executors, together with the earnings accrued to decedent at date of his death, as a part of the estate of the decedent subject to estate tax, and also included the earnings of $200,117.09 received in 1920 as income of the estate for the taxable period February 13 to December 31, 1920, subject to income tax.

We cannot consider whether the Commissioner correctly included the total amount received from the business in the net estate of the decedent subject to estate tax for the reason that the suit was not timely instituted. The only question for decision is whether the Commissioner correctly included the item of $200,117.09 in income for the purpose of income tax payable by the estate.

Plaintiff contends that upon the death of the decedent there was a dissolution of the partnership and that the amount of $212,718.79 paid by the surviving partners from the earnings of the business to December 31, 1920, was a consideration for the acquisition by them of the interest of the deceased partner in the partnership, and that, since the value of the decedent's interest in the partnership at the date of his death, as determined by the Commissioner, was $235,202.99, there was no taxable income to the estate from the transaction.

The defendant insists that the business was continued, either as a partnership...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Bull v. United States, 649
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 29, 1935
    ...by the Commissioner from the amount of $200,117.09 on account of the value of the decedent's interest in the partnership at his death.' 6 F.Supp. 141, 142. September 5, 1925, the executor appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals from the deficiency of income tax so determined. The Board sustain......
  • Crossett Lumber Co. v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • February 8, 1937
    ...and, after having his claim for refund rejected, brought an action in the Court of Claims on September 16, 1930, to recover the same. 6 F.Supp. 141. The Court of Claims found against the taxpayer on the ground that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. On certiorari to the Sup......
  • Dunigan v. United States, 43524.
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • May 31, 1938
    ...denied the alternative relief on the ground that suit had not been timely instituted for recovery of the estate tax. Bull v. United States, 6 F.Supp. 141, 79 Ct.Cl. 133. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed our decision as to the taxability of the earnings for income tax purpos......
  • William S. Gray & Co. v. United States
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • March 5, 1934

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT