National Bank of Orange v. United States

Decision Date17 June 1963
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 2632.
Citation218 F. Supp. 907
PartiesThe NATIONAL BANK OF ORANGE, Orange, Virginia, Administrator of the Estate of Arthur E. Sims, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia

V. R. Shackelford, Jr., Orange, Va., for plaintiff.

Plato Cacheris, First Asst. U. S. Atty., Alexandria, Va., for defendant.

LEWIS, District Judge.

This is an action brought to recover estate taxes assessed against the plaintiff and collected by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue of the United States. The controversy arises over the marital deduction claimed under § 2056, Title 26, U.S.C.A.

The facts are not in dispute and were submitted to the Court by stipulation with supporting exhibits. They are as follows:

Arthur E. Sims died intestate on April 9, 1957. He was survived by his widow, Louise B. Sims, and three minor children, who were his sole heirs at law. The National Bank of Orange, the plaintiff herein, was duly qualified as administrator of Mr. Sims' estate, and the wife was appointed and qualified as guardian of the three minor children.

The late Mr. Sims owned a farm in Orange County, Virginia, known as the Boulware Farm. This farm by operation of law passed from the decedent to his three minor children, subject to the widow's dower interest.

The widow's dower in this farm had not been assigned or laid off in kind as of June 3, 1957. On that date the infant heirs at law, by their guardian, instituted suit in the Circuit Court of Orange County, Virginia, to have the Boulware Farm sold. They alleged that the widow's dower could not be laid off in kind and prayed that her dower be commuted and paid to her. The widow in her answer joined in the prayer that the farm be sold and that her dower interest be commuted and paid to her as provided for under the laws of Virginia.

Upon a hearing, the court found that the interest of the infant defendants would be promoted by the sale of the farm, and appointed special commissioners to negotiate for the sale of the property. The court, on July 30, 1958, approved the sale for $65,000.00 and directed the special commissioners to convey the property to the purchaser upon receipt of the full purchase price, free of the widow's dower interest therein.

The widow's dower interest was then commuted in accordance with § 55-269 of the Code of Virginia, and the aggregate amount of $14,067.50 was paid over to her out of the proceeds from said sale.

On June 20, 1958, the plaintiff filed the estate tax return of Arthur E. Sims, in which no amount of the commuted dower interest of the widow was included in the marital deduction. Subsequently the plaintiff duly filed a claim for a refund, claiming that the commuted dower interest of the widow qualified for the marital deduction. This deduction thus claimed was disallowed by the Internal Revenue Bureau on the ground that the dower interest of the widow in Boulware Farm was a non-deductible terminable interest.

Under the provisions of § 2056(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, an estate is allowed a deduction for property (to the extent of one-half of the value of the estate) which passes to the widow. One limitation on this rule is that provided in § 2056(b): that there is no deduction allowed for an interest passing to the widow which is terminable upon her death or upon the happening of some other event.

We hold in the instant case that the payment made to the widow for the commuted value of her dower interest in the Boulware Farm qualifies for the marital deduction, as provided for in the statute referred to in the preceding paragraph. There was no sale by the widow of her dower interest in this farm.

It is well settled in Virginia that until the widow's dower has been assigned to her, her dower right is merely a right to sue for and compel the setting aside to her of her dower interest. It is not an estate in itself. 6 Michie's Jurisprudence 370; 1 Minor on Real Property (2d Ed. Ribble) 405.

When the widow's dower is laid off and assigned to her it becomes a life estate (terminable) in the land assigned. Here the widow's dower was never assigned. To the contrary, the Circuit Court of Orange County, Virginia, in a suit instituted in behalf of the infant heirs, held that the widow's dower in the said land could not be conveniently laid off and assigned to her. Thus she had the right by statute to have her dower commuted and paid to her.1 She...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Brunton v. Kruger
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 27, 2014
    ... ... Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 360 Ill. 454, 458, 196 N.E ... of the accountant-client privilege, Tibble cites United States v. Balistrieri, 403 F.2d 472 (7th Cir.1968), ... ...
  • Nachimson v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Nachimson)
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • June 10, 1968
    ...States, supra (Montana); Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. United States, 234 F.Supp. 897 (M.D.N.C. 1964); National Bank of Orange v. United States, 218 F.Supp. 907 (E.D. Va. 1963); Moore v. United States, supra (Kentucky); United States v. Hiles, supra (Alabama); American National Bank & Trust ......
  • Stewart v. Usry
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • July 18, 1967
    ...v. Commissioner, 22 T.C. 966; United States v. Lincoln Rochester Trust Co., 297 F.2d 891 (2nd Cir. 1962). 9 National Bank of Orange v. United States, D.C., 218 F.Supp. 907; and Dougherty v. United States, 292 F.2d 10 Pipe's Estate v. Commissioner, 241 F. 2d 210 (2nd Cir. 1957); Starrett v. ......
  • Estate of Kennedy v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • July 23, 1969
    ...287 F.Supp. 10, 15; Wachovia Bank & Trust Company v. United States (D.C.N.C.1964) 234 F. Supp. 897, 901; National Bank of Orange v. United States (D.C.Va.1963) 218 F. Supp. 907, 910. 3 See Dougherty v. United States, supra, at p. 337: "Under this construction of the Act, we are more concern......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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