Helvering v. Seatree, 6130.
Citation | 72 F.2d 67 |
Decision Date | 04 June 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 6130.,6130. |
Parties | HELVERING, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, v. SEATREE. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Sewall Key, J. Louis Monarch, E. Barrett Prettyman, Harold Allen, and Walter L. Barlow, all of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Edward B. Burling and W. M. Parker, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.
This is an appeal from decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals involving consolidated proceedings for the determination of deficiencies of income taxes in the sums of $9,207.60, $4,012.60, and $5,111.88 for the years 1922, 1923, and 1924, respectively.
It appears that for several years prior to 1920 appellee, Seatree, had been a member of the accounting firm of Price, Waterhouse & Co., of New York, consisting of nineteen partners. In addition to the cash capital contributed by the partners, there was recognized a valuable good will belonging to six senior members, of whom Seatree was one; the remaining thirteen partners having no interest therein.
On June 1, 1920, the partners entered into a new partnership agreement. Under that agreement Seatree was accorded a right to 16 shares of the profits while he remained a partner; a right to 7 per cent. on his capital invested in the firm until repaid to him; a right, in the event of his death or retirement, to have a return of his capital, with accrued interest; and, in the event of his death or retirement, to have certain payments made to him or his legal representatives during the three-year period following his death or retirement.
Section 2, article IV, of the agreement, making provision for the six senior partners in case of death or retirement, provided:
Seatree retired from the firm on June 30, 1921, and received and returned as income for taxation sixteen shares of the profits up to that date, which included all business done up to that date, whether or not then paid for or billed. On June 29, 1922, Seatree executed and delivered a certain written instrument, under seal, by which he "granted, bargained, sold, aliened, remised, released, conveyed, assigned, transferred, and set over, * * *" to the Equitable Trust Company of New York, as trustee for the benefit of his daughters, "all my right, title, and interest in and to four undivided shares of the profits or income now due, or which may hereafter become due and payable to me for the three years ending June 30, 1924, under and by virtue of a certain partnership agreement." The instrument gave the trustee full power to manage the property and invest the funds for the benefit of the beneficiaries named therein. Seatree reserved the right to add to the principal, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sunnen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...56 F.2d 121, certiorari denied 286 U.S. 565, 52 S.Ct. 646, 76 L.Ed. 1297; Lowery v. Helvering, 2 Cir., 70 F.2d 713; Helvering v. Seatree, 63 App.D.C. 274, 72 F.2d 67, 68; Shanley v. Bowers, 2 Cir., 81 F.2d 13; Commissioner v. O'Donnell, 9 Cir., 90 F.2d 907, 910, reversed on other grounds 30......
-
MEAD'S BAKERY, INC. v. Commissioner
...contrary to the facts as disclosed by the record. William Ernest Seatree Dec. 7413, 25 B. T. A. 396 (1932), affd. 4 USTC ¶ 1299 72 F. 2d 67 (C. A. D. C. 1934); cf. Commissioner v. Cummings 35-2 USTC ¶ 9383, 77 F. 2d 670 (C. A. 5, 1935), reversing a Memorandum Opinion of the Board of Tax App......
-
Dalton v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Kahr), Docket No. 1281-65.
...by James F. Dalton, executor of the Estate of William Kahr, and by Mary K. Kahr. William Ernest Seatree, 25 B.T.A. 396 (1932), affd. 72 F.2d 67 (1934); Mead's Bakery, Inc. v. Commissioner, 364 F.2d 101 (C.A. 5, 1966), affirming on this point a Memorandum Opinion of this Court. Since Kahr ne......
-
Blohm v. Commissioner, Docket No. 5741-89.
...USTC ¶ 9669] 448 F.2d 1281 (10th Cir. 1971); Seatree v. Commissioner [Dec. 7413], 25 B.T.A. 396 (1932), affd. [4 USTC ¶ 1299] 72 F.2d 67 (D.C. Cir. 1934). The testimony of Stickelber and Ritchey was to the effect that the $1,289,412.50 was wire transferred and received in the Cayman Islands......