Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Powers v. Commissioner

Powers v. Comm’r, 312 U.S. 259 (1941)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1941-02-03
Topic
estate-planning

How later courts describe this case

  • "[W]hat criterion should be employed for determining the 'value' of the gifts is a question of law"

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Powers v. Commissioner. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
82 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Tax Law — Gift Tax The determination of the proper criterion for ascertaining the "value" of property for purposes of the gift tax under the Revenue Act of 1932 is a question of law, and an appellate court is therefore justified in reversing a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals that applies an incorrect criterion as "not in accordance with law." 312 U.S. at 260
  2. Tax Law — Gift Tax Where single-premium life insurance policies are irrevocably assigned as gifts shortly after issuance, the value of the gifts for gift-tax purposes is not the cash-surrender value of the policies but the cost of duplicating them at the dates of the gifts. 312 U.S. at 260 (citing Guggenheim v. Rasquin, 312 U.S. 254)
POWERSv. COMMISSIONER,312 U.S. 259(1941)
POWERSv. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT.
No. 486.
Argued January 7, 1941.
Decided February 3, 1941.
Determination of the criterion of "value" for the purposes of the gift tax under the Revenue Act of 1932 is a question of law, and a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals that in the case of single-premium policies of life insurance, irrevocably assigned as gifts shortly after issuance, the value of the gifts was the cash surrender value of the policies, was properly reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals as "not in accordance with law."Guggenheimv.Rasquin, antep. 254. P. 260.115 F.2d 209, affirmed.
CERTIORARI,311 U.S. 640, to review the reversal of a decision
of the Board of Tax Appeals setting aside a determination of a
deficiency in a gift tax.
Mr. Ralph G. Boydfor petitioner.Mr. J. Louis Monarch, with whomSolicitor General Biddle,Assistant Attorney General Clark, andMessrs. Sewall Key,Arnold Raum, andJoseph M. Joneswere on the brief, for respondent.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is the same as that inGuggenheimv.Rasquin, ante, p. 254. 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-surrenderPage 260value 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.115 F.2d 209. That judgment must be affirmed on the authority ofGuggenheimv.Rasquin,supra, unless as claimed by petitioner the court below was precluded from substituting its judgment of value for that of the Board.Helveringv.Rankin,295 U.S. 123,131. But the question of what criterion should be employed for determining the "value" of the gifts is a question of law. SeeLucasv.Alexander,279 U.S. 573. 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.Affirmed.