Johnson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 97.

Decision Date14 December 1936
Docket NumberNo. 97.,97.
Citation86 F.2d 710
PartiesJOHNSON v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Kellogg, Emery & Inness-Brown, of New York City (Dean Emery, J. Fearon Brown, and J. Raymond Kochendorfer, all of New York City, of counsel), for petitioner.

Robert H. Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key and John G. Remey, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

SWAN, Circuit Judge.

The deficiency in dispute results from the disallowance of a deduction of $24,000 claimed by the petitioner to have been paid as interest on his promissory note, and to be an allowable deduction from gross income under section 23(b) of the Revenue Act of 1928 (45 Stat. 799 26 U.S.C.A. § 23 and note). The facts reveal an ingenious attempt to reduce taxes by means of a plan which was intended to give the character of interest payments to money used to pay insurance premiums on policies upon the life of the petitioner. There were 15 such policies, all of them payable to his wife. The total annual premiums amounted to about $21,000, and prior to the year 1931 Mr. Johnson had paid them. In that year money for the premiums was provided pursuant to the transactions which are now to be described.

On July 3, 1930, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson proceeded to put into effect a plan, suggested to them by an insurance broker and his attorney, which had the threefold objective of reducing Mr. Johnson's annual income taxes, reducing estate taxes in the event of his death, and putting the aforesaid insurance policies in trust for the protection of Mrs. Johnson and the children. It was carried out as follows: Mr. Johnson borrowed $400,000 from the National City Bank upon his unsecured demand note. He then delivered to Mrs. Johnson his check for a like amount, which she forthwith deposited in her account in the same bank. She then executed two trust deeds which Mr. Johnson had had prepared, to City Bank Farmers Trust Company as trustee, one called "the funded trust," and the other called "the insurance trust," and assigned the aforesaid insurance policies to the trustee under the insurance trust to be held for the benefit of Mrs. Johnson for life and thereafter for her surviving children. She also delivered to the trustee under the funded trust her check for $400,000 which was to constitute the corpus of this trust. The funded trust provided that the trustee was to manage the fund, and to apply the net income thereof in payment of premiums on the said insurance policies, the balance of net income in any year to be paid to Mrs. Johnson. The funded trust also provided, among other things, that "it shall be the duty" of the trustee to loan to Mr. Johnson at any time on his written request the whole or any part of the principal of the trust estate to be secured solely by his demand note or notes bearing 6% interest. The trustee was expressly forbidden to assign any note received from Johnson or to take any action to collect the principal or interest thereof except as directed in writing by Mr. Johnson or her executor or administrator. Upon Mr. Johnson's death the trustee was to present all notes for payment, and to turn over the proceeds collected, or the notes themselves if payment was refused, to Mrs. Johnson, or to her estate. The funded trust was to terminate upon the death of Mr. Johnson. Both trusts were declared to be irrevocable and to be governed by the laws of New York. On July 8, 1930, Mr. Johnson requested that the trustee make a "loan" to him of $400,000, pursuant to the terms of the trust deed. He delivered to the trustee his demand note for this amount bearing 6% interest, and used the money received to pay off his loan at the National City Bank, adding $250 to cover five days' interest thereon. Upon his note held by the trustee he has paid interest quarterly. Out of the $24,000 paid by him to the trustee in 1931, the trustee paid the insurance premiums, taxes, etc., and reported $21,035.29 as income taxable to it. The balance (less commissions and expenses) of $2,712.57 was paid by the trustee to Mrs. Johnson and was included in her income tax return. In Mr. Johnson's return for 1931 he claimed as a deduction for interest the $24,000 paid to the trustee. This the Board disallowed on the ground that "there was no bona fide gift made by Johnson to his wife or loan secured by Johnson from the trustee."

Counsel for the petitioner asserts that the transactions above described resulted in the following legal relations: Mr. Johnson made an absolute and unconditional gift of $400,000 to his wife; with her own property she set up a trust having a capital of $400,000; the trustee loaned this sum to Mr. Johnson upon his demand note bearing interest, and he paid such interest to the trustee in 1931. If...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 cases
  • Apt v. Birmingham
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • March 25, 1950
    ...F.2d 214, 217, certiorari denied 293 U.S. 583, 55 S.Ct. 97, 79 L.Ed. 679; Johnson v. Commissioner, 1936, 33 B.T.A. 1003, affirmed 2 Cir., 1936, 86 F.2d 710, cases cited at p. 712; Iowa Bridge Co. v. Commissioner, 1929, 14 B.T.A. 1048, reversed, 8 Cir., 1930, 39 F.2d 777, 781; Ford v. Nauts,......
  • May v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • January 8, 1981
    ...supra However, to fully understand the doctrine, we must trace it back to its origins. The doctrine first surfaced in Johnson v. Commissioner 86 F.2d 710 (2d Cir. 1936), affg. 33 B.T.A. 1003 (1936). In Johnson v. Commissioner supra the taxpayer borrowed money from a bank and gave the money ......
  • State ex rel. St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Hoehn
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 6, 1943
    ...the transaction is a fraud against the State entitled to the taxes. Chisholm v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 79 F.2d 14; Johnson v. Commissioner, 86 F.2d 710; Morsman Commissioner, 90 F.2d 18; Electrical Securities Corp. v. Commissioner, 92 F.2d 593; Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 495,......
  • Woodward v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • June 26, 1952
    ...held deductible in Preston v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 1942, 132 F.2d 763. The Court, distinguishing its earlier case of Johnson v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 1936, 86 F.2d 710, pointed out that but for the seal the deduction would not have been allowed. Cf., Estate of Rose M. Harter v. Commissione......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Significant recent developments in estate planning.
    • United States
    • The Tax Adviser Vol. 25 No. 10, October 1994
    • October 1, 1994
    ...K. Flandreau, 2d Cir., 1993 (72 AFTR2d [paragraph] 149,095, 93-1 USTC [paragraph] 60,137), aff'g TC Memo 1992-173. (26)See F. Coit Johnson, 86 F2d 710 (2d Cir. 1936)(18 AFTR 650, 37-1 USTR [paragraph] 9007); Guarantee Trust Co. of New York, 98 F2d 62 (2d Cir. 1938)(21 AFTR 649, 38-2 USTC [p......

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