Stone v. White
| Decision Date | 04 October 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 5112.,5112. |
| Citation | 8 F. Supp. 354 |
| Parties | STONE et al. v. WHITE, Collector of Internal Revenue. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Burdett, Wardwell & Ranney and Thomas Allen, all of Boston, Mass., for plaintiffs.
Francis J. W. Ford, U. S. Atty., and J. Duke Smith, Sp. Asst. to U. S. Atty., both of Boston, Mass., for defendant.
This action at law for the recovery of $24,870.66 and interest thereon was heard on September 20, 1934, and at the request of one of the parties the trial was continued until to-day in order to afford opportunity for counsel to present a brief and save their rights as to such rulings as might then be made.
The defendant's motion for judgment, which was presented seasonably, was denied, subject to his exception duly taken during the trial.
The facts are as stated in the agreed statement of facts, which is made a part of this memorandum. It discloses, among other things, the following:
The plaintiffs at all times material to this controversy were and still are the trustees under the will of Galen L. Stone, deceased. The plaintiff Robert G. Stone, as trustee, filed income tax returns on March 15, 1929, one on Form 1041 showing income received and amounts paid by the plaintiffs as trustees to Carrie M. Stone, sole beneficiary under the trust created by the will of Galen L. Stone, and on Form 1040 showing taxable profits received by the plaintiffs as trustees during the calendar year 1928, which sum was not payable to the beneficiary and which return did not include amounts of income reported on Form 1041. On these returns there was assessed to the plaintiffs as trustees and paid by them the sum of $3,012.70 in the following installments:
March 15, 1929, $749.90. April 26, 1929, $13.12. June 15, 1929, $749.90. September 15, 1929, $749.89. December 15, 1929, $749.89.
As a result of a review and audit, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined a deficiency of $21,982.80, against the plaintiffs as trustees, and said amount together with interest amounting to $2,809.28, or $24,792.08, was assessed and paid under protest on May 18, 1931. With the letter of February 12, 1931, determining such deficiency, was a statement that income from property held by the trust under the will of Galen L. Stone to satisfy annual payments to the widow in lieu of her dower or statutory interest is not an allowable deduction in the return of the trust prior to such time as such payments equal the value of her dower or statutory interest in her deceased husband's estate.
Of the total tax and interest paid, the amount for which recovery is sought, $24,870.66, plus interest from the dates of payment, is due to the denial of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue of a deduction on account of the amount of income paid to Carrie M. Stone, under section 162 (b) of the Revenue Act of 1928 (26 USCA § 2162 (b), reading, so far as material, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stone v. White
...by petitioners against respondent, the Collector, in the District Court for Massachusetts, resulted in a judgment for petitioners, 8 F.Supp. 354, which was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 78 F.(2d) 136. We granted certiorari, 300 U.S. 643, 57 S.Ct. 610, 81 L.......
-
Pacific Mills v. Nichols
...in most of the cases in the lower courts which have followed, or cited, the rule in Lewis v. Reynolds, the same is true. In Stone v. White, D.C., 8 F.Supp. 354, however, without any administrative action the Collector was permitted to show at the trial that a beneficiary had not paid a tax,......
-
First Nat. Bank of Birmingham v. United States
...case the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 78 F.(2d) 136, 138, has reversed the District Court of Massachusetts in White v. Stone, 8 F. Supp. 354, where, in a case similar in facts to the instant case, the District Court had held contrary to the decision at which I have arrive......
-
White v. Stone
...collected against her having expired. Section 275 of the Revenue Act of 1928 (45 Stat. 856, 26 USCA § 2275). In the District Court (8 F. Supp. 354, 355) it was held that: "The fact that the government did not seasonably pursue its remedy against Mrs. Stone within the time when it could have......