Knox v. Elligott
| Decision Date | 01 May 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 602,602 |
| Parties | KNOX et al. v. McELLIGOTT, as Late Collector of Internal Revenue, etc |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Stark B. Ferriss, of New York City, for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. James A. Fowler, of Knoxville, Tenn., for defendant in error.
This case involves the same principles and contentions passed on in Nos. 200, 236, and 303.
It, as they, is an action to recover a tax ($11,819.74) assessed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue as an additional estate tax on the estate of Jonas B. Kissam, deceased, under the Act of September 8, 1916, as amended in 1917. The action was brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaint was a voluminous paper and contained at least four causes of action. As to the first, consisting of 22 paragraphs, McElligott filed a demurrer. Plaintiff made a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The motion was granted, and a final judgment was awarded against 'defendant on the merits, for the relief prayed for in the first cause of action set forth' in the complaint.
The judgment was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 275 Fed. 546.
The following four paragraphs are a summary of the allegations of the complaint stated narratively:
In 1912 the decedent, Jones B. Kissam, was the owner of certain bonds and mortgages and corporate bonds. In that year he conveyed the property to the plaintiff in error, John C. Knox, who, shortly thereafter, reconveyed the same to Kissam and his wife, Cornelia B. Kissam, as joint tenants. All of the parties resided in the state of New York.
In 1917 Kissam died, leaving Mrs. Kissam surviving him. She was made one of the executors of the will, as well as sole beneficiary thereunder.
On Kissam. They included in the return the value of one-half of the jointly owned property which was owned and enjoyed by decedent, but did not include the value of the one-half of the jointly owned property, which had been owned and enjoyed by Mrs. Kissam since the creating of the joint estates in July and August of 1912.
A tax of $5,354.14 based upon the return was paid by the plaintiffs in error. On May 9, 1919, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue added to the estate the one-half interest of the value of the estate and assessed as a tax in addition to that which was paid, the sum of $13,668.60. The additional tax was paid under protest and to recover it is the purpose of the action.
The Circuit Court of Appeals, stating the contention of the executors, said that 'they claimed that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rompel v. United States
...a joint tenant has a right to sell his interest and may sue for partition. The Circuit Court cited the case of Knox v. McElligott, 258 U.S. 546, 42 S.Ct. 396, 66 L. Ed. 760, and quoted from that opinion as follows 97 F.2d "From the structure of the act to say that the measure of the tax is ......
-
Hernandez v. Becker
...estates created before the enactment of the Revenue Act of 1921. Carter v. English (C. C. A. 9) 15 F.(2d) 6; Knox v. McElligott, 258 U. S. 546, 42 S. Ct. 396, 66 L. Ed. 760; Lynch v. Congdon (C. C. A. 8) 1 F.(2d) 133; Mastick v. Commissioner, 18 B. T. A. Finally, the purpose of section 402 ......
-
Myers v. Magruder
...v. Wardell, 258 U.S. 537, 42 S.Ct. 393, 66 L. Ed. 753; Levy v. Wardell, 258 U.S. 542, 42 S.Ct. 395, 66 L.Ed. 758; Knox v. McElligott, 258 U.S. 546, 42 S.Ct. 396, 66 L.Ed. 760; Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U.S. 142, 276 U.S. 594, 48 S.Ct. 105, 72 L.Ed. 206; Untermyer v. Anderson, 276 U.S. 440, 48......
-
Blodgett v. Union & New Haven Trust Co.
... ... Heth, 3 Cranch, 399, 413, 2 L.Ed. 479; also United ... States v. Burr, 159 U.S. 78, 82, 83, 15 S.Ct. 1002, 40 L.Ed ... 82." Id.; Knox v. McElligott, 258 U.S ... 546, 42 S.Ct. 396, 66 L.Ed. 760; Lynch v. Congdon, 1 F ... (2d) 133 (C. C. A.); Blodgett v. Union & N.[111 ... Conn ... ...