TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Estate of Clarence H. Loeb, Deceased, Bessie Robinson Loeb, Isidore Robinson and Harry Robinson, Executors v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

ESTATE OF Clarence H. LOEB, Deceased, Bessie Robinson Loeb, Isidore Robinson and Harry Robinson, Executors, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Estate of Clarence H. Loeb, Deceased, Bessie Robinson Loeb, Isidore Robinson & Harry Robinson v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 261 F.2d 232 (2d Cir. 1958)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 28, 1958
Docket
Nos. 12, Docket 25015
Judges
Swan, Moore, Kaufman
Citations
261 F.2d 2323 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 17101958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5500

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

The decedent died on August 25, 1951. His wife Bessie and three sons survived him. In April 1941 Bessie took out three insurance policies on the life of her husband. The policies named her as beneficiary and the proceeds thereof were paid to her after her husband’s death. He never had any control of the policies or any incidents of ownership. All premiums on the policies were paid by the wife by checks drawn on her personal checking account. Most of the funds deposited in her checking account were gifts from her husband but she testified she could have used the gifts for what *233 ever purpose she pleased. The Tax Court held (1) that the husband indirectly paid the premiums and therefore the proceeds of the policies were includi-ble in his estate under § 811(g)(2)(A) of the 1939 Code as amended, 26 U.S. C.A. § 811(g)(2)(A); and (2) that said section is not unconstitutional in its application to this case. The opinion by Judge Tietjens is reported in 29 T.C. 22 and was reviewed by the Tax Court.

All the points advanced by the petitioners on their appeal were presented below and have been carefully considered and competently discussed in the opinion of the Tax Court. We have nothing to add to the discussion.

Decision affirmed on opinion below.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1959: 21960: 21970: 119592026peak 1959 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Manufacturers National Bank of Detroit363 U.S. 194 (1960)
  2. Carlton v. Commissioner34 T.C. 988 (Tax Ct. 1960)
  3. Schwarz v. United States170 F. Supp. 2 (E.D. La. 1959)
  4. Manufacturers National Bank of Detroit v. United States175 F. Supp. 291 (E.D. Mich. 1959)
  5. Estate of Chapin v. Commissioner1970 T.C. Memo. 7

Most recent

  1. Estate of Chapin v. Commissioner1970 T.C. Memo. 7
  2. Carlton v. Commissioner34 T.C. 988 (Tax Ct. 1960)
  3. United States v. Manufacturers National Bank of Detroit363 U.S. 194 (1960)
  4. Manufacturers National Bank of Detroit v. United States175 F. Supp. 291 (E.D. Mich. 1959)
  5. Schwarz v. United States170 F. Supp. 2 (E.D. La. 1959)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Loeb v. Comm'r, 29 T.C. 22 (Tax Ct. 1957) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list