Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Mr. Ralph G. Boyd, of Boston, Mass., for petitioner.
Mr. J. Louis Monarch, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is the same as that in Guggenheim v. Rasquin, 312 U.S. 254 , 61 S.Ct. 507, 85 L.Ed. --, decided this day. Petitioner in November and December, 1935, purchased single-premium policies of insurance on her own life and late in December, 1935, irrevocably assigned them as gifts. The Commissioner determined a deficiency, claiming that the value of the policies for gift-tax purposes was the cost of duplicating them at the dates of the gifts, not the cash-surrender [312 U.S. 259, 260] value as reported by petitioner. The Board of Tax Appeals held that the value of the gifts was their cash-surrender value. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. 1 Cir., 115 F.2d 209. That judgment must be affirmed on the authority of Guggenheim v. Rasquin, supra, unless as claimed by petitioner the court below was precluded from substituting its judgment of value for that of the Board. Helvering v. Rankin, 295 U.S. 123, 131 , 55 S. Ct. 732, 736. But the question of what criterion should be employed for determining the 'value' of the gifts is a question of law. See Lucas v. Alexander, 279 U.S. 573 , 49 S.Ct. 426, 61 A.L.R. 906. Accordingly, the Circuit Court of Appeals was justified in reversing the decision of the Board as 'not in accordance with law'. Int.Rev.Code 1939, 1141(c)(1), 53 Stat. 164, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, 1141(c)(1).
Affirmed.
Response sent, thank you
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 312 U.S. 259
Docket No: No. 486
Argued: January 07, 1941
Decided: February 03, 1941
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)