COMMERCE TRUST COMPANY AND ROBERT W. WILLITS, EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM G. PARROTT, DECEASED, APPELLEES,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLANT
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.
An estate can use expenses incurred in selling stocks and securities as both an estate tax deduction and an offset against capital gains for income tax purposes.
Executors of an estate sued for recovery of federal income taxes paid. The estate sought to use selling expenses for both estate tax deductions and ca…
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 Capital Gains And Losses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal raises the single issue of whether Section 642(g) of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code prevents an estate from using expenses incurred in the selling of stocks and securities both as a deduction for estate tax purposes under Section 2053 of the Code and as an offset against the gross sale amount in computing capital gains and losses for estate income tax purposes. We hold that it does not.
The appeal evolved from an action brought in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri by the executors of an estate for recovery of federal income taxes paid by the estate. The material facts were stipulated to and are set in the decision of the District Court which granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs. Commerce Trust Company v. United States, 309 F.Supp. 1317 (W.D.Mo. 1969).
This precise issue was originally decided contrary to the government’s position in Estate of Viola E. Bray, 46 T.C. 577 (1966), aff’d mem., 396 F. 2d 452 (6th Cir. 1968) (relying on the opinion of the Tax Court). Most recently, the issue has created a flury of judicial activity. The resulting decisions have unanimously followed Bray in rejecting the government’s position. Smith v. United States, 319 F.Supp. 174 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 28, 1970); Clapp v. United States, No. 70-524-HP, 70-2 U.S.T.C. ¶ 12,720 (C.D.Cal., Aug. 24, 1970), appeal authorized, 9th Cir., 717 CCH-Standard Federal Tax Reports 70,704; Wilson v. United States, No. 69-1237-F, 70-2 U.S.T.C. ¶12,714 (C.D.Cal., Aug. 28, 1970); Estate of Walter E. Dorn, 54 T.C. 1651 (1970), notice of appeal filed, 9th Cir., CCH-Standard Federal Tax Reports 70,705; Mercantile Safe-Deposit & Trust Company v. United States, No. 21316, 70-1 U.S.T.C. ¶9422 (D.Md., May 19, 1970); Kreher v. United States, 314 F.Supp. 409 (M.D.Fla., May 1, 1970), appeal docketed, No. 30,343, 5th Cir., Aug. 10, 1970, 717 CCH-Standard Federal Tax Reports 70,70s.1
The court below closely reexamined the reasoning of the Bray decision and the most recent legislative history affecting Section 642(g). We think it correctly found the government’s arguments wanting.2
For the reasons stated in the opinion of the lower court and in the opinion of the Tax Court in Estate of Viola E. Bray, supra, the judgment of the District Coui't is
Affirmed.
. The Commissioner has nonetheless announced that he will not acquiesce in the Tax Court’s decision in Bray. Int.Rev. Bull. 1970-30,7.
. See also, 65 Mich.L.Rev. 571 (1967) and the authorities cited in n. 9 therein.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Commissioner OF Internal Revenue v. Est. of Bray, 396 F.2d 452 (6th Cir. 1968)
- Leonard v. Wharton, 396 F.2d 452 (4th Cir. 1968)