HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
v.
RICHTER
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 Circuit Court of Appeals erred in refusing to consider the applicability of Section 22(a) on appeal, and the taxpayer is entitled to introduce additional evidence.
A taxpayer transferred securities to a trust for his wife, with the securities to revert to him later. The Board of Tax Appeals found the grantor not …
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 Trust Income cases and more on FLexlaw
Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court.
Because the decision below, 114 F. 2d 452, was in conflict with that of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Helvering v. Hormel, 111 F. 2d 1, affirmed, ante, p. 552, we granted certiorari “limited to the first question presented by the petition for the writ.” 311 U. S. 641. The petition stated that question as follows:
“The taxpayer transferred securities to a third party in trust to pay the income to his wife. At the end of five years, or earlier if the beneficiary consented, the securities were to be transferred back to the taxpayer. The Board of Tax Appeals held that the grantor was not taxable with respect to the income from the trust. Two questions are presented:
“1. Whether, by invoking the general gross income provisions of Section 22, the Commissioner had so changed the theory of the Government’s case on appeal as to' preclude the Circuit Court of Appeals from considering the issue.
“2. Whether, on the merits, the trust income was taxable as income of the grantor under Section 22.”
In view of the limited grant of certiorari, the second question is not before us. On the first question, the Circuit Court of Appeals held that it could not consider the applicability of § 22 (a), that being an "issue now for the first time presented by the Commissioner.” The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals, which the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, was handed down prior to our decision in Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U. S. 331. Respondent urges that had he been advised with fair certainty that the government relied upon § 22 (a), he could have introduced additional evidence directed to that issue. For reasons set out in our decision in Hormel v. Helvering, ante, p. 552, we are of opinion that the Circuit Court of Appeals was in error in its conclusion, but we are also of opinion that respondent is entitled to introduce additional evidence if he so desires. The judgment is accordingly reversed, with directions to the court below to remand to the Board of Tax Appeals for rehearing in the light of. the Clifford casé.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Buck, 120 F.2d 775 (2d Cir. 1941)…ble Trusts and the Income Tax, in Studies in Federal Taxation, Third Series, 1940, at 224-225. Other alleged distinguishing factors can be summarily dismissed: In the Clifford case, the donor was himself the trustee; but Helvering v. Richter, 1941, 61 S.Ct. 723, 85 L.Ed.-, removes that as a significant difference; moreover, respondent Buck can remove the trustee at his pleasure; cf. Hormel v. Helvering, 1941, 61 S.Ct. 719, 85 L.Ed. -. In the Horst case, supra, title to the corpus was retained by the donor;…
-
Jones v. Norris, 122 F.2d 6 (10th Cir. 1941)…s 166 and 167. Helvering v. Hormel, 8 Cir., 111 F. 2d 1, affirmed by the Supreme Court March 17, 1941, 61 S.Ct. 719, 85 L.Ed. 1037, and Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Richter, 3 Cir., 114 F. 2d 452, reversed by the Supreme Court March 17, 1941, 61 S.Ct. 723, 85 L.Ed. 1043. Section 22 (a) of tlie Revenue Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 680, includes among “gross income” all “gains, profits, and income derived * * * from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whet…
-
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Wells, 132 F.2d 405 (6th Cir. 1942)…and the Government, on appeal, in the light of such decision, relies upon a Statutory provision not previously presented, the case is remanded to enable the respondent to introduce additional evidence directed to the new issue. Helvering v. Richter, 312 U.S. 561, 61 S.Ct. 723, 85 L.Ed 1043. In view of the foregoing decisions and the opinion of the Supreme Court in Helvering v. Hutchings, supra, it is our conclusion that the Board should have granted the Commissioner’s motions for reconsideration, amendment…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331 (U.S. 1940)
- Helvering v. Hormel, 111 F.2d 1 (8th Cir. 1940)
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Richter, 114 F.2d 452 (3d Cir. 1940)
- Est. of Abendroth v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 311 U.S. 641 (U.S. 1940)