Wolder v. Commissioner case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
493 F.2d 608, 1974 U.S. App. 9955, 74-1
U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9266; 74-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P12,982
CASE SYNOPSIS: Appellant taxpayer and
Appellee Commissioner of Internal Revenue (United States) sought
review of the judgment of the Tax Court (United States), which held
that the stock and cash received by appellant under his client's will
constituted taxable income, under I.R.C. § 61, and was not exempt as
a bequest, under I.R.C. § 102, and that the stock and cash were
constructively received in the year of the client's death.
FACTS: Pursuant to a written agreement, appellant taxpayer, an attorney, provided legal services to her at no charge to his client who bequeathed her stock to appellant upon her death. Appellant received the stock and cash one year after the client's death, when its value had considerably increased. The tax court held that the stock and cash were taxable income, under I.R.C. § 61, and were not exempt as a bequest, under I.R.C. § 102, and that appellant constructively received the stock and cash in the year of the client's death rather than the year in which he actually received it. Appellant and appellee Commissioner of Internal Revenue (United States) sought review.
FACTS: Pursuant to a written agreement, appellant taxpayer, an attorney, provided legal services to her at no charge to his client who bequeathed her stock to appellant upon her death. Appellant received the stock and cash one year after the client's death, when its value had considerably increased. The tax court held that the stock and cash were taxable income, under I.R.C. § 61, and were not exempt as a bequest, under I.R.C. § 102, and that appellant constructively received the stock and cash in the year of the client's death rather than the year in which he actually received it. Appellant and appellee Commissioner of Internal Revenue (United States) sought review.
ANALYSIS:
The court affirmed the judgment in
part, holding that the gift was not excludable, under § 102, as the
contract was, in effect, one for the postponed payment of legal
services rather than for a gift. The court reversed the judgment in
part, holding that the date of the transfer of the stock was the date
of appellant's actual receipt rather than the date of the client's
death, as the income was not unqualifiedly subject to the demand of
appellant because it was open to the residuary legatees.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the judgment in part, holding that the bequest of stock and cash by appellant taxpayer's client to him was not exempt from taxation, as the bequest was not a gift but a postponed payment for uncharged legal services. The judgment was reversed in part, as the bequest was taxable in the year that appellant received it, rather than in the year of the client's death, because it was not unqualifiedly subject to appellant's demand.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the judgment in part, holding that the bequest of stock and cash by appellant taxpayer's client to him was not exempt from taxation, as the bequest was not a gift but a postponed payment for uncharged legal services. The judgment was reversed in part, as the bequest was taxable in the year that appellant received it, rather than in the year of the client's death, because it was not unqualifiedly subject to appellant's demand.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment