Opinion · United States Board of Tax Appeals
Wetherill v. Commissioner
Wetherill v. Comm’r, 36 B.T.A. 1259 (B.T.A. 1937)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States Board of Tax Appeals
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1937-12-31
- Topic
- general
Mellott, concurring and dissenting: I concur in the findings and the portion of the opinion holding that the conveyance by the decedent of a portion of his property to the trust for the benefit of his grandchildren was not made in contemplation of his death. I am not convinced, however, that the facts justify a similar conclusion with reference to the conveyance for the benefit of his children. The fact that he had discussed, and had given consideration to, the making of such conveyance for 15 years but had deferred doing so until he reached the ripe old age of 83 years; that for many years he had apparently been content to dole out his property to his children rather than attempt to teach them how to handle large incomes; and that he was “fully aware of the importance of setting [his] house in order for the inevitable end” 10 years before the conveyance was made, indicate quite clearly that it was made in contemplation of his death rather than for “purposes associated with life.” United States v. Wells, 283 U. S. 102.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Wetherill v. Commissioner. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
concurring and dissenting: I concur in the findings and the portion of the opinion holding that the conveyance by the decedent of a portion of his property to the trust for the benefit of his grandchildren was not made in contemplation of his death. I am not convinced, however, that the facts justify a similar conclusion with reference to the conveyance for the benefit of his children. The fact that he had discussed, and had given consideration to, the making of such conveyance for 15 years but had deferred doing so until he reached the ripe old age of 83 years; that for many years he had apparently been content to dole out his property to his children rather than attempt to teach them how to handle large incomes; and that he was “fully aware of the importance of setting [his] house in order for the inevitable end” 10 years before the conveyance was made, indicate quite clearly that it was made in contemplation of his death rather than for “purposes associated with life.” United States v. Wells, 283 U. S. 102. Accordingly I dissent from the portion of the opinion which holds that the property conveyed by the decedent to the trust for the benefit of his children should not be included in his gross estate.
TURNER agrees with the above.