Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Larson
| Decision Date | 21 October 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 10131.,10131. |
| Citation | 131 F.2d 85 |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LARSON. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key, Helen R. Carloss, and
Earl C. Crouter, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
H. B. Jones, of Seattle, Wash., for respondent.
Before GARRECHT, HANEY, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
The question raised by the petition of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is whether the income from community property in the hands of the executor of the husband's estate, is taxable in its entirety to the estate, or whether one-half of such income is taxable to the surviving spouse.
Adelbert Larson, a resident of Washington, died testate on June 7, 1934, leaving surviving him his widow, the respondent. All property which the parties had upon his death was community property, the total value of which was $2,353,480.79 which included 210,974 shares of stock in Sunshine Mining Company valued at $1,435,595.60. The will provided for legacies in a total amount of $482,000 and named a bank as executor. Claims filed against the estate amounted to $112,140.51.
During 1934 certain income was received from community property consisting of:
Dividends from Surety Finance
Company ...................... $ 7,200.00
Interest on obligations received 4,749.36
Rentals received ............... 19,564.98
Dividends received ............. 66,907.28
On June 30, 1934, preparatory to listing the stock of Sunshine Mining Company on the New York Curb Exchange, one Stolle obtained options to purchase 70,000 shares of such stock from the executor. On July 26, 1934, the executor petitioned the probate court for and received authority to grant options covering 70,000 shares of Sunshine Mining Company stock. The petition stated that it was necessary to sell part of the personal property to pay the specific bequests. Respondent at no time gave permission to sell her interest in any community property, and there was no understanding that her interest was affected by the sales. On July 31, 1934, the executor petitioned for and received authority to sell an additional 15,000 shares of such stock.
On May 1, 1935, a petition for partial distribution was filed in the probate court stating that 85,000 shares of Sunshine stock had been sold "leaving in the possession of the executor * * * shares to the number of 125,974, of which said shares respondent, as surviving spouse, is the owner of 105,487". The order granting the petition was to the same effect reciting that respondent was entitled to receive the 105,487 shares of such stock upon closing of the estate "as her share of the community property". The profit on the sale of the stock was $95,904.77.
The income tax return of the estate for 1934, included the entire amounts of income above enumerated and the profit from the sale of stock. Respondent included no part of the items in her return. Petitioner audited her return, included one-half of each item as income, and assessed a deficiency in the tax she paid. On petition for redetermination the Board disapproved petitioner's action. Petitioner then initiated this review from the Board's decision.
Generally speaking, the amount of the net estate of a member of a community, for purposes of estate tax, is determined by deciding who the owner of the property in question is. Lang v. Commissioner, 304 U.S. 264, 58 S.Ct. 880, 82 L.Ed. 1331, 118 A.L.R. 319. In determining who must report community income for purposes of income taxation, the test of ownership as between the living members of the community, is likewise used as the test. Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101, 51 S.Ct. 58, 75 L.Ed. 239. The instant case is the third situation, that is, where there is community income, but one member of the community is dead, and the latter's estate is being probated. In that situation, should the estate of the deceased report the entire community income, or only one-half hereof, so that the surviving spouse must report the other half thereof?
The particular statute governing the question provides that the specified tax on incomes "shall apply to the income of estates * * * including * * * (3) Income received by estates of deceased persons during the period of administration or settlement of the estate * * *" Petitioner contends that "ownership" is again the test to be used in solving the question, while respondent contends that the test is "receipt and control during administration, not * * * ultimate beneficial interest". Apparent inconsistencies are present when either rule is chosen. It would seem to be inconsistent not to apply the rule of "ownership" to all three situations above described, but, on the other hand, it seems inconsistent to say that a spouse "owns" only half of the community income while living, but the whole thereof after he dies.
Under the community property system, at least as it existed prior to modification by state statutes, the community is considered as something separate and apart from the members thereof, something in the nature of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sneed v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
... ... Commissioner, 5 Cir., 180 F.2d 952, and with the holdings of the Ninth Circuit in Bishop v. Commissioner, 152 F.2d 389, and United States v. Merrill, 9 Cir., 211 F.2d 297. In the last cited case, the Ninth Circuit said of its earlier decision in Commissioner v. Larson, 9 Cir., 131 F.2d 85, "And in the Larson case we gave undue emphasis to the powers of the executor of the estate of a deceased spouse with reference to the community property and the income therefrom during the period of administration, and insufficient attention to the community property law of ... ...
-
United States v. Merrill
... ... Subsequently an Internal Revenue Agent who was investigating the estate tax return filed by ... See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Larson, 9 Cir., 131 F.2d 85, and cases cited in ... ...
-
Kamins v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 5981-68.
...Schramm v. Steele, 97 Wash. 309, 166 Pac. 634 (1917); United States v. Merrill, 211 F.2d 397 (C.A. 9, 1954); and Commissioner v. Larson, 131 F.2d 85, 87 (C.A. 9, 1942). [54 T.C. 982] Respondent takes the position that, at the time of the loss, the residence was community property and that, ......
-
SPARKS FARM INC. v. Commissioner
...deduction for the amount she paid. Larson v. Commissioner Dec. 12,016, 44 B.T.A. 1094, 1104 (1941), affd. 42-2 USTC ¶ 9699 131 F.2d 85 (9th Cir. 1942). This is true even if the cosigner later makes a gift of the amount to the other cosigner. Larson v. Commissioner, supra. Accordingly, Mrs. ......