Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate Noel, No. 503
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | BLACK |
| Citation | 14 L.Ed.2d 159,380 U.S. 678,85 S.Ct. 1238 |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner. v. ESTATE of Marshal L. NOEL, Deceased, William H. Frantz and Ruth M. Noel, Executors |
| Docket Number | No. 503 |
| Decision Date | 29 April 1965 |
v.
ESTATE of Marshal L. NOEL, Deceased, William H. Frantz and Ruth M. Noel, Executors.
John B. Jones, Jr., Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Harry Norman Ball, Philadelphia, Pa., for respondents.
Page 679
Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a federal estate tax case, raising questions under § 2042(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. § 2042(2) (1958 ed.), which requires inclusion in the gross estate of a decedent of amounts received by beneficiaries other than the executor from 'insurance under policies on the life of the decedent' if the decedent 'possessed at his death any of the incidents of ownership, exercisable either alone or in conjunction with any other person. * * *'1 The questions presented in this case are whether certain flight insurance policies payable upon the accidental death of the insured were policies 'on the life of the decedent' and whether at his death he had reserved any of the 'incidents of ownership' in the policies.
These issues emerge from the following facts. Respondent Ruth M. Noel drove her husband from their home to New York International Airport where he was to take an airplane to Venezuela. Just before taking off, Mr. Noel signed applications for two round-trip flight insurance policies, aggregating $125,000 and naming his wife as beneficiary. Mrs. Noel testified that she paid the premiums of $2.50 each on the policies and that her husband then instructed the sales clerk to 'give them to my
Page 680
wife. They are hers now, I no longer have anything to do with them.' The clerk gave her the policies, which she kept. Less than three hours later Mr. Noel's plane crashed into the Atlantic Ocean and he and all others aboard were killed. Thereafter the companies paid Mrs. Noel the $125,000 face value of the policies, which was not included in the estate tax return filed by his executors. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined that the proceeds of the policies should have been included and the Tax Court sustained that determination, holding that the flight accident policies were insurance 'on the life of the decedent'; that Mr. Noel had possessed exercisable 'incidents of ownership' in the policies at his death; and that the $125,000 paid to Mrs. Noel as beneficiary was therefore includable in the gross estate. 39 T.C. 466. Although agreeing that decedent's reserved right to assign the policies and to change the beneficiary amounted to 'exercisable incidents of ownership within the meaning of the statute,' the Court of Appeals nevertheless reversed, holding that given 'its ordinary, plain and generally accepted meaning,' the statutory phrase 'policies on the life of the decedent' does not apply to insurance paid on account of accidental death under policies like those here. 332 F.2d 950. The court's reason for drawing the distinction was that under a life insurance contract an insurer 'agrees to pay a specified sum upon the occurrence of an inevitable event,' whereas accident insurance covers a risk 'which is evitable and not likely to occur.' (Emphasis supplied.) 332 F.2d, at 952. Because of the importance of an authoritative answer to these questions in the administration of the estate tax laws, we granted certiorari to decide them. 379 U.S. 927, 85 S.Ct. 330, 13 L.Ed.2d 340.
In 1929, 36 years ago, the Board of Tax Appeals, predecessor to the Tax Court, held in Ackerman v. Commis-
Page 681
sioner, 15 B.T.A. 635, that 'amounts received as accident insurance' because of the death of the insured were includable in the estate of the deceased.2 The Board of Tax Appeals recognized that 'there is a distinction between life insurance and accident insurance, the former insuring against death in any event and the latter * * * against death under certain contingencies * * *.' The Court of Appeals in the case now before us considered this distinction between an 'inevitable' and an 'evitable' event to be of crucial significance under the statute. The Board of Tax Appeals in Ackerman did not, stating 'we fail to see why one is not taken out upon the life of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Negusie, Interim Decision #3999
...of IIRIRA buttressed the Board's 1988 interpretation that the persecutor bar contains no such exception. See Comm'r v. Est. of Noel, 380 U.S. 678, 682 (1965) ("We have held in many cases that such a long-standing administrative interpretation, applying to a substantially re-enacted statute,......
-
United States v. Branigan, No. 68 Cr. 284
...1967). 61 Act, § 10(b) (1), 50 U.S.C.App. § 460 (b) (1). 62 Act, § 6(h) (1), 50 U.S.C.App. § 456 (h) (1). Cf. Comm'r v. Noel's Estate, 380 U.S. 678, 682, 85 S.Ct. 1238, 14 L. Ed.2d 159 (1965); Cammarano v. United States, 358 U.S. 498, 510, 79 S.Ct. 524, 3 L.Ed.2d 462 (1959); United States v......
-
Westchester Gen. Hosp. v. DEPT. OF HEALTH, ETC., No. 77-364-Civ-J-S.
...Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 8-11, 85 S.Ct. 1271, 1276-78, 14 L.Ed.2d 179, 185-87 (1965); Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Noel's Estate, 380 U.S. 678, 681-82, 85 S.Ct. 1238, 1240, 14 L.Ed.2d 159, 162 (1965); Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16-18, 85 S.Ct. 792, 801-802, 13 L.Ed.2d 616, 625-2......
-
Ewing v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 1940-01 (U.S.T.C. 1/28/2004), Docket No. 1940-01.
...Congress intended the longstanding legal interpretation of that language to be applied to the new statute. Commissioner v. Noel's Estate, 380 U.S. 678, 680-681 (1965); United States v. 101.80 Acres, 716 F.2d 714, 721 (9th Cir. There are other situations in which this Court makes determinati......
-
In re Negusie, Interim Decision #3999
...of IIRIRA buttressed the Board's 1988 interpretation that the persecutor bar contains no such exception. See Comm'r v. Est. of Noel, 380 U.S. 678, 682 (1965) ("We have held in many cases that such a long-standing administrative interpretation, applying to a substantially re-enacted statute,......
-
United States v. Branigan, No. 68 Cr. 284
...1967). 61 Act, § 10(b) (1), 50 U.S.C.App. § 460 (b) (1). 62 Act, § 6(h) (1), 50 U.S.C.App. § 456 (h) (1). Cf. Comm'r v. Noel's Estate, 380 U.S. 678, 682, 85 S.Ct. 1238, 14 L. Ed.2d 159 (1965); Cammarano v. United States, 358 U.S. 498, 510, 79 S.Ct. 524, 3 L.Ed.2d 462 (1959); United States v......
-
Westchester Gen. Hosp. v. DEPT. OF HEALTH, ETC., No. 77-364-Civ-J-S.
...Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 8-11, 85 S.Ct. 1271, 1276-78, 14 L.Ed.2d 179, 185-87 (1965); Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Noel's Estate, 380 U.S. 678, 681-82, 85 S.Ct. 1238, 1240, 14 L.Ed.2d 159, 162 (1965); Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16-18, 85 S.Ct. 792, 801-802, 13 L.Ed.2d 616, 625-2......
-
Ewing v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 1940-01 (U.S.T.C. 1/28/2004), Docket No. 1940-01.
...Congress intended the longstanding legal interpretation of that language to be applied to the new statute. Commissioner v. Noel's Estate, 380 U.S. 678, 680-681 (1965); United States v. 101.80 Acres, 716 F.2d 714, 721 (9th Cir. There are other situations in which this Court makes determinati......