Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Tait v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. of Baltimore

Tait v. Safe Deposit & Tr. Co. of Balt., 78 F.2d 534 (4th Cir. 1935)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1935-06-15
Topic: general

PER CURIAM. The judgments of the District Court in case No. 3867 in favor of the executor of the estate of Celeste M. W. Hutton, and in case No. 3868 in favor of the administrators of the estate of Bessie K. Fleming, were based upon conclusions of law set forth in the opinion of the court published in 8 F.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Tait v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. of Baltimore. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 3 opinions

TAIT v. SAFE DEPOSIT TRUST CO. OF BALTIMORE,78 F.2d 534(4th Cir. 1935)

TAIT v. SAFE DEPOSIT TRUST CO. OF BALTIMORE. UNITED STATES v. SAFE

DEPOSIT TRUST CO. OF BALTIMORE et al.

Nos. 3867, 3868.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

June 15, 1935.

Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. At Law.

Actions by the Safe Deposit Trust Company of Baltimore, surviving executor of the estate of Celeste M.W. Hutton, deceased, against Galen L. Tait, Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Maryland, and by the Safe Deposit Trust Company of Baltimore and another, as administrators of the estate of Bessie K. Fleming, deceased, against the United States of America. From judgments for plaintiffs (8 F. Supp. 634), defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Julian G. Gibbs, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen. (Frank J. Wideman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., and Bernard J. Flynn, U.S. Atty., and G. Randolph Aiken, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellants.

Charles McH. Howard, of Baltimore, Md., for appellees.

Before PARKER, NORTHCOTT and SOPER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The judgments of the District Court in case No. 3867 in favor of the executor of the estate of Celeste M.W. Hutton, and in case No. 3868 in favor of the administrators of the estate of Bessie K. Fleming, were based upon conclusions of law set forth in the opinion of the court published in8 F. Supp. 634. The holding of the court in the Hutton case that the shares of the surviving beneficiaries of the grantor in the corpus of the estate were not taxable as part of the grantor's gross estate, is in harmony with the decision of the Supreme Court in McCormick v. Burnett,283 U.S. 784,51 S. Ct. 343,75 L. Ed. 1413, and the holding in both cases that the representatives of the estates were not limited to the recovery of the portion of the tax paid within four years preceding the suits, but were entitled to recover the whole amount of the taxes erroneously paid, is in conformity with the decisions of the Court of Claims and of the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits.¹

Affirmed.Page 535Page 594

Court of claims: Hills v. U.S.,50 F.2d 302; Hills v. U.S.,55 F.2d 1001; Hills v. U.S.,8 F. Supp. 849; Haebler v. U.S.,8 F. Supp. 855; Safe Dep. Co. v. U.S.,9 F. Supp. 606.

Second Circuit: Union Trust Co. v. U.S.,70 F.2d 629, certiorari denied293 U.S. 564,55 S. Ct. 99, 79 L. Ed. ___.

Third circuit: United States v. Clarke,69 F.2d 748, 94 A.L.R. 975, certiorari denied293 U.S. 564,55 S. Ct. 75,79L. Ed. ___.

Ninth Circuit: United States v. Magoon (C.C.A. Hawaii)77 F.2d 804. ↩