ESTATE OF JAMES R. LOWE, DECEASED. CROCKER NATIONAL BANK, JAMES R. LOWE, JR. AND MARGOT H. LOWE, CO-EXECUTORS, PETITIONERS,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the Tax Court did not err in finding that property transferred in trust was includable in the decedent's gross estate as transferred in contemplation of death.
The Tax Court found that property transferred in trust by decedent James Lowe was includable in his gross estate as having been transferred in contemp…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Transfer In Contemplation Of Death cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The sole issue on appeal is whether the Tax Court erred in finding that the value of certain property transferred in trust is in-cludable in the gross estate of decedent James Lowe as having been transferred by him “in contemplation of death” within the meaning of the former version of Int.Rev. Code of 1954, § 2035.1 We affirm.
Since the property was transferred for less than adequate consideration within three years of Lowe’s death, it is presumed to have been transferred in contemplation of death “unless shown to the contrary.” Id. % 2035(b). See First Nat’l Bank v. United States, 488 F. 2d 575, 576 (9th Cir. 1973); Estate of Compton v.
C. I. R, 532 F. 2d 1086, 1087 (6th Cir. 1976); Berman v. United States, 487 F. 2d 70, 72 (5th Cir. 1973). The Tax Court held that the estate had not met its burden of proving to the contrary, and it found that the transfer in trust was made by Lowe “in contemplation of death.” See Allen v. Trust Co., 326 U.S. 630, 635-36, 66 S.Ct. 389, 90 L.Ed. 367 (1946); United States v. Wells, 283 U.S. 102, 115-20, 51 S.Ct. 446, 75 L.Ed. 867 (1931); Gillette’s Estate v.
C. I. R, 182 F. 2d 1010, 1015 (9th Cir. 1950). Having given due consideration to the factors advanced by the parties — including Lowe’s state of health at the time of the transfer, his previous marriages and eventual third marriage, and the numerous wills, codicils, and inter vivos trusts which he executed between 1961 and his death in 1969 — we cannot say that the Tax Court’s finding of fact, see Allen, supra at 636, 66 S.Ct. 389, is clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); Int.Rev. Code of 1954, § 7482(a); Gillette's Estate, supra at 1013-14 (applying former § 1141(a), now § 7482(a)); Sullivan’s Estate v.
C. I. R, 175 F. 2d 657, 658 (9th Cir. 1949) (same); Estate of Compton, supra at 1088.
AFFIRMED.
. Section 2035 has recently been amended. See Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub.L. 94-455, Title XX, § 2001(a)(5), 90 Stat. 1848. Includa-bility under the revised § 2035 no longer turns on a construction of the prior statutory phrase “in contemplation of death.” The amendments to § 2035, however, are not applicable to transfers made before January 1, 1977. See Tax Reform Act of 1976, § 2001(d)(1), 90 Stat. 1854. The transfer in trust at issue in the instant case took place in 1967.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parkside, Inc. v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 571 F.2d 1092 (9th Cir. 1977)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Wells, 283 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1931)
- Allen v. Tr. Co. of Ga., 326 U.S. 630 (U.S. 1946)
- Gillette's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 182 F.2d 1010 (9th Cir. 1950)
- Fay Lewis Berman v. United States, 487 F.2d 70 (5th Cir. 1973)
- Sullivan's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 175 F.2d 657 (9th Cir. 1949)
- First Nat'l Bank OF Or. v. United States, 488 F.2d 575 (9th Cir. 1973)
- Est. of Ross H. Compton v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 532 F.2d 1086 (6th Cir. 1976)