Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Fuller v. Helvering

105 F.2d 903

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1939-06-30
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. This case differs from Helvering v. Leonard, 2 Cir., 105 F.2d 900, handed down herewith, only in that the divorce was granted in Nevada, and the trust was in full discharge of the husband’s duty to support the wife. Under the law of Nevada a settlement of the kind here in question does not conclude the divorce court as to the wife’s allowance, but the allowance once made is final (Sweeney, v. Sweeney, 42 Nev. 431, 179 P. 638) unless the decree reserves power to the divorce court to modify it.

Citator

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

Authority status
pending
Cited by
4 opinions
FULLER v. HELVERING,105 F.2d 903(2nd Cir. 1939)
FULLER v. HELVERING, Com'r of Internal Revenue.
No. 129.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 30, 1939.
Appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals.

Petition by Alfred C. Fuller to review an order of the Board of Tax Appeals redetermining a deficiency in the tax imposed by Guy T. Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and assessing taxpayer upon income for the years 1931, 1932, and 1933. The income involved was from a voluntary, irrevocable trust created by the taxpayer pursuant to a settlement agreement contemplating an uncontested divorce by wife. The divorce decree, when obtained, approved such agreement.

Order reversed.
John C. Parsons, of Hartford, Conn. (Robinson, Robinson Cole, Francis W. Cole, and James M. Carlisle, all of Hartford, Conn., of counsel), for petitioner.

James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key and L.W. Post, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for Helvering, Commissioner.

William D. Mitchell, of New York City, Harold B. Tanner, of Providence, R.I., and Rollin Browne, of New York City (Mitchell, Taylor, Capron Marsh, of New York City, and Tillinghast, Collins Tanner, of Providence, R.I., of counsel), amici curiæ.
Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This case differs from Helvering v. Leonard, 2 Cir.,105 F.2d 900, handed down herewith, only in that the divorce was granted in Nevada, and the trust was in full discharge of the husband's duty to support the wife. Under the law of Nevada a settlement of the kind here in question does not conclude the divorce court as to the wife's allowance, but the allowance once made is final (Sweeney v. Sweeney,42 Nev. 431, 179 P. 638) unless the decree reserves power to the divorce court to modify it. Lewis v. Lewis,53 Nev. 398,Page 9042 P.2d 131; Aseltine v. Second Judicial District Court,57 Nev. 269,62 P.2d 701. The decree of divorce contained no such reservation in the case at bar, and the settlement was a final discharge. The income from the trust was therefore taxable only to the wife.

Order reversed; deficiencies expunged.