Mcintosh's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Rev.
Decision Date | 30 August 1957 |
Docket Number | No. 321-323,Dockets 24345-24347.,321-323 |
Citation | 248 F.2d 181 |
Parties | ESTATE of Mary Lois K. McINTOSH, deceased, Russell L. McIntosh and Empire Trust Company, Executors, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ESTATE of Mary Lois K. McINTOSH, deceased, Russell L. McIntosh and St. Louis Union Trust Company, Trustees and Transferees, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ESTATE of Mary Lois K. McINTOSH, deceased, Eugene Kilpatrick Perry, Transferee, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Pullman, Comley, Bradley & Reeves, Bridgeport, Conn., for petitioners in Nos. 24345 & 24346, Parker, Duryee, Benjamin, Zunino & Malone, New York City, for petitioner in No. 24347; Robert M. Benjamin, New York City, Arthur M. Comley, Bridgeport, Conn., Raymond A. Carter, New York City, Frederick Pope, Jr., Bridgeport, Conn., and Sidney D. Rosoff, New York City, of counsel.
Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack, Lee A. Jackson and Morton K. Rothschild, Washington, D. C., for appellee-respondent.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and SWAN and POPE, Circuit Judges.
The petitioners here are the Estate of Mary Lois K. McIntosh, deceased, and the above named transferees from said estate. The Commissioner determined a deficiency in estate tax due from that estate, and determined the same deficiency against the other petitioners as transferees. Separate petitions for redetermination were filed in the Tax Court, but since the petitioning transferees conceded that if a deficiency was determined against the estate, the same decision must be made against them, all three petitions were consolidated for hearing in the Tax Court. Following the Tax Court's decisions upholding the Commissioner's determinations of deficiency, petitions to review were filed here, and all three were consolidated for briefing and hearing in this court.
The findings and opinion of the Tax Court are reported at 25 T.C. 794. Because we assume familiarity with those findings we make no effort to repeat them here. The Tax Court upheld the Commissioner on two separate grounds. In affirming we find it unnecessary in this opinion to do more than indicate the reasons why we approve the Tax Court's finding that the decedent released her power of appointment in contemplation of death within the meaning of § 811(d) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C.A. § 811(d) (2).1
The deficiency here involved arises from the determination of the Commissioner that there should be included in the estate for estate tax purposes the value of the property transferred in trust in 1929 by the trust instrument set out in the Tax Court's opinion. Under that trust, property previously owned by Mary Lois K. Perry (later Mary Lois K. McIntosh), the decedent, was conveyed to trustees to be held in trust "for the sole use and benefit of Mary Lois K. Perry * * * for and during her natural life," the entire net income to be paid to her in monthly installments. Following further provisions that she should have no power to sell, assign or anticipate any interest created by this instrument, it was provided as follows:
* * *"
It was the power of appointment stated in the first sentence just quoted which was relinquished by the "Release of Power" copied in the Tax Court's findings. The case turns upon the question whether that relinquishment by Mary Lois K. McIntosh was in contemplation of her death within the meaning of § 811(d) (2).
The evidence was that for a considerable period prior to the execution of this "Release of Power," which occurred on November 4, 1943, Mrs. McIntosh had been seeking advice, and taking certain steps designed to avoid the payment of estate taxes. In 1941 the corporate trustee under the trust wrote her, answering an inquiry as to whether she could make a present assignment of trust income to her son, as follows:
As a result of this suggestion of the trustee, decedent consulted an attorney and made a new will which specifically refrained from exercising the power. This new will replaced an old one in which she had undertaken to exercise the power of appointment. Then came the Trustee's suggestion of May 27, 1943, that in the light of certain changes in the 1942 Revenue Act, it would be well for decedent to review her power under the trust instrument. Upon advice of counsel she then executed the "Release of Power" above referred to. The letter from her attorneys, on which she acted, was devoted wholly to discussion of the recommended action as a procedure designed to avoid estate taxes.2 The decedent's husband testified before the Tax Court that he knew of no reason for the relinquishment of the power other than the saving of taxes.
We think it clear that the power of appointment quoted above, whereby "the entire trust estate" should be made to "go to such parties and under such terms and conditions as the said Mary Lois K. Perry may, by her last will, direct," was, because of the circumstances attending the creation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rosenberg v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Rosenberg)
...Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 278 U.S. 339 (1929); Savage v. United States, 331 F.2d 678 (2d Cir. 1964); Mclntosh's Estate v. Commissioner, 248 F.2d 181 (2d Cir. 1957), affg. 25 T.C. 794 (1956); Bailey v. Ratterre, 243 F.2d 454 (2d Cir. 1957); Rhode Island Hosp. Tr. Co. v. Commissioner, 2......
-
Marshall v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Marshall) , Docket Nos. 147-67
...108, as amended by T.D. 6077, 1954— 2 C.B. 308, 312; cf. Estate of Mary Lois K. McIntosh, 25 T.C. 794, 804 fn. 2 (1956), affd. 248 F.2d 181 (C.A. 2, 1957), certiorari denied 355 U.S. 923 (1958). Petitioners urge here, as they did with respect to the estate tax issue, that Dora was not a cos......
-
EMPIRE TRUST COMPANY v. United States
...of Internal Revenue, 25 T.C. 794. Upon appeal by plaintiffs, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the Tax Court. 248 F.2d 181. January 13, 1958 certiorari was denied. 355 U.S. 923, 78 S.Ct. 366, 2 L.Ed.2d After receiving a first notice of demand dated April 10, 1958 from the......
-
Dodge v. Commissioner, Docket No. 1568-66.
...of the Court of Appeals. See Estate of Mary Lois K. McIntosh Dec. 21,518, 25 T. C. 794, 803 (1956), affd. 57-2 USTC ¶ 11,718 248 F. 2d 181 (C. A. 2, 1957); Adele F. Goodman Dec. 14,172, 4 T. C. 191, 194 (1944), affd. 46-1 USTC ¶ 10,275 156 F. 2d 218 (C. A. 2, 5 Petitioner's position apparen......