Hamrick v. Pitts

Citation135 F. Supp. 835
Decision Date17 March 1955
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 1604.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
PartiesCatherine P. HAMRICK and Wylie L. Hamrick, as Administrators of the Estate of Lyman A. Hamrick, deceased, Plaintiffs, v. R. C. PITTS, Individually and as Director of Internal Revenue, Defendant.

T. Sam Means, Jr., R. E. Browne, III, J. Davis Kerr, Spartanburg, S. C., for plaintiffs.

Joseph E. Hines, U. S. Atty., Greenville, S. C., Carrington Williams, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant.

WYCHE, Chief Judge.

In this action the plaintiffs seek the recovery of estate taxes paid on the Estate of Lyman A. Hamrick, deceased, in the amount of $29,105.21, paid under protest, together with interest.

Upon the trial before me without a jury, the parties entered into a written stipulation as to the facts, and the question of law to be decided by the Court.

In compliance with Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A., I find the facts specially and state my conclusions of law thereon as follows:

Findings of Fact

The facts as stipulated are as follows:

"1. Lyman A. Hamrick died intestate June 16, 1950, a citizen and resident of Cherokee County, South Carolina, and leaving a widow and two children surviving. Under the South Carolina Statute of descent and distribution the widow is entitled to one-third of the intestate's estate and the two children are entitled to two-thirds of the estate.

"2. Catherine P. Hamrick and Wylie L. Hamrick, plaintiffs herein, are the duly qualified and acting Administrators of the estate of Lyman A. Hamrick, deceased.

"3. That heretofore the plaintiffs have paid to the Director of Internal Revenue the Federal estate tax assessed against the estate in the amount of $245,973.24.

"4. That heretofore the plaintiffs have filed a claim for refund for part of the estate tax so paid and in this action seek to recover that part of the Federal estate tax and interest occasioned by the Director's treatment of the marital deduction, which resulted in a decrease of the marital deduction. The amount sued for in the complaint, the sum of $29,105.21, represents that part of the estate tax and interest caused by the Director's decrease in the marital deduction.

"5. That the Probate Court for Cherokee County, South Carolina, by its Decree dated December 8, 1951, held that the widow is entitled to take her one-third interest in the estate free and clear of the Federal estate tax.

"6. The question for determination is whether or not under the laws of South Carolina and of the United States the widow takes her one-third share in the estate free and clear of any part of the Federal estate tax."

I find the following additional facts:

7. The deficiency in the federal estate tax of $26,220.91, and interest thereon of $2,884.30, was assessed by the Director of Internal Revenue as a result of his determination that the widow was not entitled to take her interest in the estate free and clear of the estate tax, and that the marital deduction allowed by the federal estate tax statute must be reduced by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Weyenberg v. United States, Civ. A. No. 6141.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • 27 Octubre 1955
    ...and citizens of community property states. The method of equalization was to some extent left up to the individual states. Hamrick v. Pitts, D.C., 135 F.Supp. 835. "Congress expressly left the question of whether a spouse's share * * * qualifying for marital deduction should be subject to f......
  • Pipe's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 7 Febrero 1957
    ...the two decisions are irreconcilable, we approve the analysis set forth in the dissent in The Ellis case. 5 See also Hamrick v. Pitts, D.C.W.D.S.C., 135 F.Supp. 835, 837, affirmed 4 Cir., 1955, 228 F.2d 486; Weyenberg v. United States, D.C.E.D.Wis.1955, 135 F.Supp. 299, 1 Sen.Rep. 1013, 80t......
  • United States v. Utica Meat Company, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • 31 Octubre 1955

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