Tilles v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Decision Date | 04 September 1940 |
Docket Number | No. 11490.,11490. |
Citation | 113 F.2d 907 |
Parties | TILLES v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
George T. Priest, of St. Louis, Mo. (Robert E. Moloney and Boyle & Priest, all of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for petitioner.
Robert N. Anderson, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen. (Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., on the brief), for respondent.
Before GARDNER and WOODROUGH, Circuit Judges, and MOORE, District Judge.
This case is before us on petition for review of a decision of the United States Board of Tax Appeals determining a deficiency in income taxes against the petitioner for the year 1931.
Prior to the year 1908 the petitioner had been married to Corinne L. Tilles, and at the April, 1908, Term of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, Mrs. Tilles sued petitioner for divorce, but later dismissed her suit, resumed marital relations with petitioner and accompanied him on a trip to Europe.
Petitioner thereafter filed suit for divorce against Corinne L. Tilles in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, at the June, 1909, Term of the court, and on the 10th day of June, 1909, petitioner was granted an absolute divorce.
Prior to the entry of said decree of divorce petitioner entered into an agreement with said Corinne L. Tilles, the terms and conditions of said agreement being reflected in the following letter from Mr. Tilles to his wife:
The day following the divorce decree the securities mentioned in the pre-divorce agreement were deposited with the Mississippi Valley Trust Company, of St. Louis, with a letter of instruction and a copy of the agreement. The letter of instruction to the Mississippi Valley Trust Company was as follows:
Within one week after the decree of divorce was granted petitioner, Mrs. Corinne L. Tilles remarried.
The record shows that Mr. Tilles withdrew the original securities from time to time, substituting others of equal value, and in several instances replacing depreciated securities with securities of greater value.
Petitioner has continued to pay his former wife the $4,800 annually, as provided in their agreement.
Upon the receipt of the $4,800 in 1931 the petitioner's former wife included the sum as taxable income in her federal income tax returns for that year and paid the tax thereon.
Until the year 1925 the petitioner, in his annual tax returns, deducted such payments as representing the payment of interest on a contractual obligation. The respondent, however, ruled in 1928, with respect to the years 1922 to 1925, that the income from the securities held by the Mississippi Valley Trust Company under the agreement of May 12, 1909, was neither includable in petitioner's gross income, nor deductible therefrom for tax purposes. But in determining the deficiency for the year 1931 involved in this proceeding, the respondent reversed the prior ruling and included the $4,800 made in that year in petitioner's taxable income. The Board of Tax Appeals sustained this determination, and thereupon petitioner filed his petition for review.
Petitioner contends that the payments to his wife, made by him, constituted no part of his income, and therefore he was not chargeable with them as income; or, else they were payments of deductible interest, at the rate of 4.8 per cent per annum, on a debt, or contractual obligation, for a valuable consideration and not in discharge of a marital obligation created in favor of petitioner's wife and against the petitioner, in the sum of $100,000, which principal petitioner bound his estate to pay absolutely upon his death, or optionally by petitioner before his death.
If either of petitioner's alternative contentions are correct, then the item of $4,800 would not constitute taxable income to the petitioner.
Petitioner testified that:
.
* * * * * *"
The testimony of the former Mrs. Tilles was as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bucknam v. Bucknam
... ... 1226, 100 S.W.2d ... 587; Turpin v. Turpin, 128 S.W.2d 279; Tilles v ... Commissioner, 113 F.2d 907; Hubbard v ... Ellithorpe, 135 Iowa ... ...
-
Kull v. Losch, 81
...v. Nelson, 71 S.D. 342, 24 N.W.2d 327. See also North v. North, 339 Mo. 1226, 100 S.W.2d 582, 109 A.L.R. 1061; Tilles v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 8 Cir., 113 F.2d 907, certiorari denied 311 U.S. 703, 61 S.Ct. 143, 85 L.Ed. 456; Welsh v. Welsh, 230 Mo.App. 1006, 93 S.W.2d 264; Denni......
-
United States v. Flynn, No. 71-1350.
...allowable. Tressler v. Commissioner, 4 Cir., 1953, 206 F.2d 538, 542; Tilles v. Commissioner, 1938, 38 B.T.A. 545, 549-551, aff'd 8 Cir., 1940, 113 F.2d 907, cert. denied 311 U.S. 703, 61 S.Ct. 143, 85 L.Ed. 456. In addition, he sought to claim at trial casualty losses to his horses, largel......
-
Thomas v. Dierks
...Commissioner, 315 U.S. 543, 554, 62 S.Ct. 754, 86 L.Ed. 1016. Cf. Longyear v. Commissioner, 64 App.D.C. 238, 77 F.2d 116; Tilles v. Commissioner, 8 Cir., 113 F. 2d 907. In the case at bar Dierks discharged the burden of proof and established by clear and convincing, indeed uncontroverted, p......