Hamrick v. Pitts
Citation | 135 F. Supp. 835 |
Decision Date | 17 March 1955 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 1604. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
Parties | Catherine 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.
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:
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-
Weyenberg v. United States, Civ. A. No. 6141.
...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
...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.