Llewellyn v. CIR
| Decision Date | 07 November 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 13293.,13293. |
| Citation | 295 F.2d 649 |
| Parties | Maxwell B. LLEWELLYN and Gertrude Llewellyn, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Hiram M. Nowlan, Janesville, Wis., for petitioner.
Lee A. Jackson, Chief, Appellate Section, Harold M. Seidel, Attorney, U. S. Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert N. Anderson, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and SCHNACKENBERG and KNOCH, Circuit Judges.
The petitioners, Maxwell B. Llewellyn and Gertrude Llewellyn, his wife, seek review of the Tax Court's decision sustaining the Commissioner's determination of deficiencies and additions respecting petitioners' income taxes for the years 1953 and 1954. Mrs. Llewellyn is a party only because she and her husband filed joint returns.
Dr. Maxwell B. Llewellyn entered into written agreements (which were in effect during the taxable years in question) with Fort Atkinson Hospital, Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin, and Mercy Hospital, Janesville, Wisconsin, to perform services for these two hospitals as a pathologist and as director of their clinical and pathological laboratories. Under these agreements, Dr. Llewellyn was to receive a stated percentage (30% at Fort Atkinson Hospital and 25% at Mercy Hospital) of the monthly gross receipts of their laboratories, subject to certain adjustments which are not pertinent here. The Fort Atkinson agreement provided for a set period, automatically renewable and subject to termination by either party on 90 days' notice. The Mercy agreement was to be effective as long as Dr. Llewellyn performed his duties under its terms.
Under amendments executed in December, 1953, both hospitals agreed to subtract stated sums from the percentage of the monthly gross receipts otherwise due Dr. Llewellyn for November and December, 1953, and for all subsequent months (unless otherwise amended) and to remit these sums directly to Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, at its Milwaukee office, for purchase of a retirement income annuity policy, for such other annuity contracts as the subtracted sums would provide, and for payment of premiums on existing contracts. These sums were to go directly to Phoenix Mutual. Dr. Llewellyn was to be the sole owner and beneficiary under the annuity contracts, and the hospitals were to notify Dr. Llewellyn if payments were not made and to advise him of the reasons for any such non-payment.
The hospitals made the agreed deductions and sent the sums to Phoenix Mutual during the years in question. Phoenix Mutual issued retirement income annuity policies to Dr. Llewellyn in response to applications made by Dr. Llewellyn as the proposed insured. The policies were sent to Dr. Llewellyn who retained them in his possession, custody and control, until 1956 when he assigned them to a bank as collateral for a loan. The remittances made by the hospitals to Phoenix Mutual were not reported as income to Dr. Llewellyn.
Before the amendment was executed, Dr. Llewellyn's attorney wrote to Sr. Mary Mira, R.S.M., Superior of the Provincial House and member of the governing board of Mercy Hospital, that Dr. Llewellyn wished part of the moneys due him from Mercy Hospital to be paid directly to Phoenix Mutual for purchase of an annuity contract, and that:
"* * * All of these amounts, of course, are to be credited by the hospital against sums that otherwise would be owing and payable directly to the pathologist under his existing contractual basis for compensation."
Dr. Llewellyn's attorney also advised Sr. Mary Mira that he knew of no possible liability to which Mercy Hospital might be exposed by paying premiums directly to the insurance company at Dr. Llewellyn's request, but that to avoid any question with respect thereto, a release and indemnity agreement from Dr. Llewellyn to the hospital had been prepared to save the hospital harmless in this procedure of paying Dr. Llewellyn's compensation under his contract. Dr. Llewellyn contends that as his employers; the two hospitals purchased annuity policies for him, within the purview of the provisions of Section 22(b) (2) (B)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sainte Claire Corporation v. Commissioner
...to prevent its constructive receipt of the principal amount of the note. Llewellyn v. Commissioner [61-2 USTC ¶ 9735], 295 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1961), affg. [Dec. 24,364(M)] T.C. Memo. 1960-197; Williams v. United States [55-1 USTC ¶ 9220], 219 F.2d 523, 527 (5th Cir. 1955); United State......
-
United States v. Hancock Bank
...not." 2 Mertens, supra § 10.01, at 2; Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 50 S.Ct. 336, 74 L.Ed. 916 (1930); Llewellyn v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 295 F.2d 649 (7th Cir. 1961); Hedrick v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 154 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1946).4 Although Humble undoubtedly placed......
-
Goldsmith v. United States, 52-75.
...the insurance policy procured by the employer to fund his liability was owned by the employer, while in Llewellyn v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 295 F.2d 649 (7th Cir. 1961), whose facts are similar to the instant case, the taxpayer-doctor was held in constructive receipt because he o......
-
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Reiser
...which he was free to enjoy at his option without limitation or restriction. The Tax Commission relies on Llewellyn v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 295 F.2d 649 (7th Cir. 1961), aff'g, 19 C.C.H. Tax Ct.Mem. 1023 (T.C.Memo 1960--197, Sept. 22, 1960). There, Llewellyn, a pathologist for t......