Kasper v. Kellar, 14974.
Decision Date | 06 January 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 14974.,14974. |
Citation | 217 F.2d 744 |
Parties | T. C. KASPER, Collector of Internal Revenue for the United States of America for the District of South Dakota, Appellant, v. Kenneth C. KELLAR, Surviving Executor of the Last Will and Testament and Estate of Chambers Kellar, Deceased, and as Executor of the Estate of Floy B. Kellar, Deceased, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
L. W. Post, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen. (H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen., Clinton G. Richards, U. S. Atty., and Francis G. Dunn, Asst. U. S. Atty., Sioux Falls, S. D., with him on the brief), for appellant.
Kenneth C. Kellar, Lead, S. D. (R. E. Driscoll, Jr., Lead, S. D., with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before SANBORN, JOHNSEN and COLLET, Circuit Judges.
Section 812(e) (1) (A) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A., in effect in 1950, the time here involved, provides for a "marital deduction", from the value of the gross estate of a decedent, for estate tax purposes, of "An amount equal to the value of any interest in property which passes or has passed from the decedent to his surviving spouse."
Subparagraph (B) thereof, however, makes the deduction inapplicable in general to life estates or other terminable interests passing to the surviving spouse. But Subparagraph (D) in turn removes or excepts from the operation of Subparagraph (B), and so leaves subject to the deduction, any interest passing to and terminable upon the death of the surviving spouse as to which "such surviving spouse's death will cause a termination or failure of such interest only if it occurs within a period not exceeding six months after the decedent's death, * * and * * * such termination or failure does not in fact occur."
The Estate of Chambers Kellar, Deceased (a practicing attorney at Lead, South Dakota) had made a marital deduction, in the estate-tax return filed by the executors, of the value of the property devised and bequeathed by Kellar's will to his widow. The Commissioner refused to allow the deduction and assessed a deficiency tax in relation to such property, on the ground that the interest given to the widow by the will was one which would not become vested until distribution of the testator's estate; which was to go to other persons, if the widow was not living at the time that such distribution was made; and which, since the law of South Dakota did not compel distributions of decedents' estates to be made within six months after their death, was not within the qualification of Subparagraph (D), supra, as legally constituting an interest which could only be caused to terminate or fail by the widow's death occurring "within a period not exceeding six months after the decedent's death."
The Estate paid the assessed deficiency and then sued in the District Court for refund of it. Recovery was granted by the court, and the Government has appealed.1
The material portions of the will are as follows:
The evidence showed that administration of the estate had in fact been had, and distribution of its assets made, within six months after the decedent's death, and that the widow was living at the time. The court2 appears to have taken the view that the occurring of these events and the removal of the contingencies thereby, within the period of six months after the decedent's death, were sufficient under the statute to establish the right to the marital deduction in the situation. It said:
But this construction and conclusion can not be held to be in harmony with the language of the statute. The statute is correctly read, we think, in Treasury Regulations 105, sec. 81.47b (d), when it says: See also Sen.Rep. No. 1013, Part 2, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 2, 7-8, 15-16.
The letter of the Commissioner to the Estate, rejecting the claim made for refund, still more directly stated the effect of the statute in the present situation, as follows:
There can be no question as to the right of Congress to make any contingency, legal or testamentary, to which the transmitting of a decedent's property is subject, the basis of a difference in estate-tax liability. Such a contingency, therefore, can as properly be made to consist of an existing legal possibility as of an existing fact condition. Whatever the selected contingency may be, it necessarily may be made admeasurable for tax purposes as of the time of the decedent's death. See Ithaca Trust Co. v. United States, 279 U.S. 151, 155, 49 S.Ct. 291, 73...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Village of Brooten v. Cudahy Packing Company
...percolating judicial trends, accepted legal climate, and familiarity with prevailing professional thought and temper", Kasper v. Kellar, 8 Cir., 217 F.2d 744, 747-748, and the experience of a judge who has long practiced or served in the particular state, Standard Brands v. Bateman, 8 Cir.,......
-
Bookwalter v. Lámar
...statutes as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Missouri, and as embodied in the jurisprudence of that state. See Kasper v. Kellar, 8 Cir., 217 F.2d 744 (1954); Yocum v. Parker, 8 Cir., 134 F. 205, 211 According to the statutory law of Missouri, "all courts and others concerned in the execu......
-
Awtry's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...The State law creates the legal interests and rights. Helvering v. Stuart, 317 U.S. 154, 161, 63 S.Ct. 140, 87 L.Ed. 154; Kasper v. Kellar, 8 Cir., 217 F.2d 744; Irvine v. Helvering, 8 Cir., 99 F.2d Joint tenancies in real and personal property have long been recognized and enforced by the ......
-
United States v. Shock
...United States on land or upon waters not within admiralty and maritime jurisdiction." Tit. 28 U.S.C. § 1356. 4 This court, in Kasper v. Kellar, 8 Cir., 217 F.2d 744, stated that it would rely heavily upon the considered appraisal of a district judge in that he was in a position to be famili......
-
Table of cases
...952, 953 (Tex Civ App — San Antonio 1956, no writ), §10:166 — K — Kappus v. Kappus , 284 SW3d 831 (Tex 2009), §10:82 Kasper v. Kellar , 217 F2d 744 (8th Cir 1954), §10:142 Kaufman v. U.S. , 462 F.2d 439 (5th Cir. 1972), §3:43 Keisling v. Landrum , 218 SW3d 737, 745 (Tex Civ — Fort Worth 200......
-
All Wills
...has been administered” created a terminable interest that disqualified the gift for the marital deduction); but see Kasper v. Kellar, 217 F2d 744 (8th Cir 1954) (allowing marital deduction because “if living at the time of the distribution of my estate” was ambiguous under South Dakota law)......