CARY
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
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 basis for computing gain or loss on securities received from a testamentary trust is the value of the securities at the date of the decedent's death, not when delivered to the legatees.
Petitioners, legatees under a testamentary trust, received securities upon the trust's termination ten years after the decedent's death. They later so…
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 Testamentary Trust cases and more on FLexlaw
Mr. Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court.
Henry M. Flagler died on May 20, 1913. .Petitioners are legatees under a testamentary trust created under his will. The trust continued for a period of ten years from his death and terminated on May 20, 1923. As of that time, the trustees delivered to petitioners1 certain securities which were sold by them in 1934 and 1936. The question presented is whether the basis for computing-gain or loss on. such sales under § 113 (a) (5). of the Revenue Acts of 1934 (48 Stat. 680) and 19362 (49 Stat. 1648) is the value of the securities when delivered to the legatees, or their value on the date of death of the decedent. Petitioners make substantially the same argument for application of the former criterion as did respondent in Helvering v. Reynolds, ante, p. 428. And they contend-that under Florida law they had at the date of death only contingent interests. But assuming they are correct in the latter contention, it is of no avail. For the reasons stated in Helvering v. Reynolds, supra, the proper basis was the value of the securities at the death of the decedent. Accordingly, the judgments of the court below (116 F. 2d 800) must be
Affirmed.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Roberts dissent for the reasons stated in their dissent in Helvering v. Reynolds,, ante, p. 435.
Some securities had previously been delivered to Harry Harkness Flagler, petitioner in No. 735, on April 26, 1921. Annie L. Flagler, whose estate is the petitioner in No. 736, received the securities here involved-as a gift from her husband, Harry Harkness Flagler. The situation therefore is the same as to both these parties since it is stipulated that he had received the securities as indicated above.
See. 113 (a) (5) of the 1936 Act is the same as § 113 (a) (5) of the 1934 Act. Art. 113 (a) (5)-l of Treasury Regulations 94, promulgated under the 1936 Act, contains provisions identical with those of Art. 113 (a) (5)-l of Regulations 86 under the 1934 Act. The relevant portions of that section and regulation under the 1934 Act are set forth in Helvering v. Reynolds, ante, p. 428.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nat Rogan v. Cutts, 116 F.2d 800 (9th Cir. 1940)
- Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 312 U.S. 675 (U.S. 1941)