Estate of Crail v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
| Decision Date | 17 March 1942 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 105509. |
| Parties | ESTATE OF JOE CRAIL, DECEASED, GLADYS S. CRAIL, EXECUTRIX, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. |
| Court | U.S. Board of Tax Appeals |
John J. Georgeson, C. P. A., and J. Marion Wright, Esq., for the petitioner.
Frank T. Horner, Esq., for the respondent.
This proceeding involves income taxes for the calendar years 1936 and 1937. Deficiencies were determined in the respective amounts of $1,883.58 and $1,398.62. The question is whether certain income was that of the decedent alone, or of his marital community in California. From evidence adduced we make the following findings of fact.
FINDINGS OF FACT.
The income tax returns for the taxable years involved were filed with the collector for the sixth district of California at Los Angeles.
The decedent, Joe Crail, died on March 2, 1938. He was married on February 10, 1920, and from that date until his death the decedent and his wife were residents of California. He was a lawyer, and served as a Member of Congress.
Shortly before his marriage in 1920, the decedent promised to his fiancee, Gladys S. Hauser, and her mother, at the time that he asked for her hand in marriage, that his wife would have half of what he had and half of what he would make in the future. He mentioned that he had a half interest in a farm in Iowa and a successful law practice. He then owned, in addition, another small piece of property in Iowa and six parcels of real estate in California. On another occasion shortly prior to the marriage, the decedent and his wife had a conversation about property, at which time he stated that he wanted no trouble about property after they were married and wanted it clearly understood that everything he had, or that they would acquire after marriage, would be community property and that she would have a half interest. After his marriage the decedent acquired various properties, both before and after July 29, 1927. The properties from which was derived the income involved in this proceeding were substantially all acquired by the decedent prior to July 29, 1927, and one item, of fiduciary income, is from a trust interest owned by him prior to marriage. On various occasions after his marriage and both prior to and after July 29, 1927, the decedent made declarations, to his wife and to others, to the effect that all of the property was community. The wife was consulted by her husband before any purchases of property were made, and took part in viewing and considering all property prior to its purchase. Decedent made a will leaving all of his property to his wife. During his life he transferred certain property to his wife as her separate property.
In 1935 the decedent filed a protest, in writing, against findings of the revenue agent's report in which he stated in part:
* * * Everything that I have or that my wife has within the State of California is the community property of both of us. The only item mentioned above which was not earned during our married life is the item of $106.56, designated as fiduciary income. I did not own any interest in any of our oil lands or leases or royalties at the time of our marriage on February 10, 1920, and every interest in oil or gas lands or leases which either of us own has been acquired since the date of our marriage and are the result of our earnings during the existence of the marriage state. Community property is more often in the name of the husband than in the name of the wife. These oil interests which require attention and management were carried in my name but for the community account.
* * * * * * *
* * * The only property or income therefrom referred to in the Examiner's reports, which was not community property when it was acquired and which has not been community property ever since our ownership, is the fiduciary interest in the trust estate referred to in Item 6 of the Examiner's report, which was acquired by me several years before my marriage. But this property was transmuted or changed by me from separate property to community property many years ago, and has been held by us as community property practically ever since our marriage in 1920.
* * * * * * *
* * * Certainly there is no declaration in any of my income tax returns or the income tax returns of my wife that the income so reported is not community property. As a matter of fact and in all honesty, it is community property and it would be a wrong and an injustice to hold otherwise.
This protest was verified by the decedent.
The income tax return filed by the decedent for 1930 indicated that items of $5,000 salary from the United States and $500 from the Transport Oil Co. were community property. Other items totaling about $22,295.47 were not listed as being community. On his income tax return for the year 1931, out of total income items of $10,298.84, only the $5,000 salary from the United States was reported as community property. In a protest as to the year 1932 the decedent explained that as a Member of Congress he had been anxious not to have personal interest in matters there pending, hence did not theretofore take advantage of the right to report on the basis of community income. The decedent filed income tax returns for the years 1932 to 1936, inclusive, in which he reported all of his income as community, except small amounts of interest on bank deposits and income from fiduciaries for the year 1932.
The decedent and his wife entered into an oral agreement, transmuting his personal estate into community property.
Since the income here involved is from property shown to have been acquired by the decedent prior to July 29, 1927, in part prior to marriage in 1920, the question is whether there was transmutation of the husband's separate property into community estate. We are governed by California law on the question as to what constitutes community estate. Black v. Commissioner, 114 Fed. 355; Talcott v. United States, 23 Fed. (2d) 897. That an oral agreement is in that state sufficient can not be doubted, under many decisions, including Kenney v. Kenney, 30 Pac. (2d) 398; In re Wahlefeld's Estate, 288 Pac. 870; Estate of J. Harold Dollar, 41 B. T. A. 869; United States v. Goodyear, 99 Fed. (2d) 523. The respondent contends in substance that the evidence here indicates only statements by the decedent, and not a mutual oral understanding sufficient to the decisions of California. It is true that the evidence consists largely of statements made by the husband, but after consideration of all of the evidence, we are of the opinion that there was a transmutation of the husband's separate estate into community property. 31 C. J. 75 on this subject says:
Assuming the capacity of the parties to deal with each other, * * * property may be transmuted in character, as community or separate, by gift between the...
To continue reading
Request your trial