Industrial Trust Co v. United States
| Decision Date | 09 December 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 213,213 |
| Parties | INDUSTRIAL TRUST CO. et al. v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Charles P. Taft, 2nd., of Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioners.
Messrs. Homer S. Cummings, Atty. Gen., and David E. Hudson, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
Petitioners, as executors of the estate of William M. Greene, who died in 1930, filed an estate tax return and paid the amount of the federal estate tax disclosed thereby. A paid-up life insurance policy of $42,000 was omitted from the return. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue declared a deficiency and included the amount of this policy in the gross estate. Petitioners filed a claim for refund, which was rejected by the Commissioner. Thereupon, this proceeding was brought in the Court of Claims to recover the amount of the claim. That court held against the right to recover and dismissed the petition.
The policy, issued in 1892, promised to make payment to the wife of the decedent, as sole beneficiary if living; and, if not living, to the surviving children of the decedent; and, in the event of none surviving, then to the executors, administrators, or assigns of the decedent. In 1912, the policy became a paid-up policy requiring no futher payment of premiums. No power was reserved to change beneficiaries, borrow on the policy, or surrender it. The wife of the decedent predeceased him; but he was survived by three children, to whom the proceeds of the policy were paid upon his death.
The case of Lewellyn v. Frick, 268 U.S. 238, 45 S.Ct. 487, 69 L.Ed. 934, arose under the Revenue Act of 1918. This case arises under the Act of 1926, § 302(g), 26 USCA § 411(g), which is the same as section 402(f) of the former act (40 Stat. 1097). Subdivision (h) of the 1926 act, 26 USCA § 411(h), however, provides that subdivisions (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) shall apply to 'transfers, trusts, estates, interests, rights, powers, and relinquishment of powers, as severally enumerated and described therein, whether made, created, arising, existing, exercised, or relinquished before or after the enactment of this Act (February 26, 1926).' Whether any of these terms apply to an amount receivable by a beneficiary, under a policy such as we have here, is fairly debatable. See Wyeth v. Crooks (D.C.) 33 F.(2d) 1018, 1019. If any of them do apply, the provision is open to grave doubt as to its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. United States, 10415.
...296 U.S. 211, 56 S.Ct. 180, 80 L.Ed. ___, definitely determines this argument against appellee — see Industrial Trust Co. et al. v. United States, 296 U.S. 220, 56 S.Ct. 182, 80 L. Ed. ___, and also see Becker v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 296 U.S. 48, 56 S.Ct. 78, 80 L.Ed. ___ (a trust tra......
-
Colonial Trust Co. v. Kraemer
...6 Cir., 85 F.2d 613, contains a brief per curiam opinion also relying upon the Bingham case and Industrial Trust Company v. United States, 296 U.S. 220, 56 S.Ct. 182, 80 L.Ed. 191, In Pennsylvania Company v. Commissioner, 3 Cir., 79 F.2d 295, cert. den. Helvering v. Pennsylvania Co., 296 U.......
-
Welch v. Commissioner of Corporations and Taxation
... ... Provisions of an ... agreement and declaration of trust, not made in contemplation ... of death, under which there were delivered ... been construed in taxing statutes. United States v ... Wells, 283 U.S. 102. Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S ... 312 ... 312. Bingham v. United States, ... 296 U.S. 211. Industrial Trust Co. v. United States, ... 296 U.S. 220 ... The ... ...
-
Keefe v. United States, 45518.
...487, 69 L.Ed. 934; Bingham v. United States, 296 U.S. 211, 56 S.Ct. 180, 80 L.Ed. 160, and Industrial Trust Co. et al., Executors, v. United States, 296 U.S. 220, 56 S.Ct. 182, 80 L.Ed. 191, are not controlling under the facts in this case because the insured retained in the insurance contr......