From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Powers v. Commissioner

U.S.
Feb 3, 1941
312 U.S. 259 (1941)

Summary

affirming same

Summary of this case from Schwab v. Comm'r

Opinion

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT.

No. 486.

Argued January 7, 1941. Decided February 3, 1941.

Determination of the criterion of "value" for the purposes of the gift tax under the Revenue Act of 1932 is a question of law, and a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals that in the case of single-premium policies of life insurance, irrevocably assigned as gifts shortly after issuance, the value of the gifts was the cash surrender value of the policies, was properly reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals as "not in accordance with law." Guggenheim v. Rasquin, ante p. 254. P. 260. 115 F.2d 209, affirmed.

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 640, to review the reversal of a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals setting aside a determination of a deficiency in a gift tax.

Mr. Ralph G. Boyd for petitioner.

Mr. J. Louis Monarch, with whom Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key, Arnold Raum, and Joseph M. Jones were on the brief, for respondent.


The issue in this case is the same as that in Guggenheim v. Rasquin, ante, p. 254. Petitioner in November and December, 1935, purchased single-premium policies of insurance on her own life and late in December, 1935, irrevocably assigned them as gifts. The Commissioner determined a deficiency, claiming that the value of the policies for gift-tax purposes was the cost of duplicating them at the dates of the gifts, not the cash-surrender value as reported by petitioner. The Board of Tax Appeals held that the value of the gifts was their cash-surrender value. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. 115 F.2d 209. That judgment must be affirmed on the authority of Guggenheim v. Rasquin, supra, unless as claimed by petitioner the court below was precluded from substituting its judgment of value for that of the Board. Helvering v. Rankin, 295 U.S. 123, 131. But the question of what criterion should be employed for determining the "value" of the gifts is a question of law. See Lucas v. Alexander, 279 U.S. 573. Accordingly, the Circuit Court of Appeals was justified in reversing the decision of the Board as "not in accordance with law." Int. Rev. Code 1939, § 1141(c) (1); 53 Stat. 164.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Powers v. Commissioner

U.S.
Feb 3, 1941
312 U.S. 259 (1941)

affirming same

Summary of this case from Schwab v. Comm'r

In Powers v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1941, 312 U.S. 259, 260, 61 S.Ct. 509, 510, 85 L.Ed. 817, the Supreme Court said, "the question of what criterion should be employed for determining the `value' * * * is a question of law".

Summary of this case from Meadow Land & Improvement Co. v. Commissioner

stating that the ultimate determination of fair market value is a finding of fact, while the question of what criteria should be used to determine the value is a question of law subject to de novo review

Summary of this case from Anthony v. U.S.
Case details for

Powers v. Commissioner

Case Details

Full title:POWERS v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Court:U.S.

Date published: Feb 3, 1941

Citations

312 U.S. 259 (1941)

Citing Cases

Zanuck v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

They rely solely on the argument that the statute taxes only value, and that for the Commissioner to refuse,…

Wishard v. United States

Here, the beneficiary's right to receive the annuity payments did not ripen on Dr. Wishard's death. It was…