Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Archbold v. Helvering

115 F.2d 1005

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1940-12-02
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. This case presents no other questions than those decided in Van Vranken v. Helvering, 2 Cir., 115 F.2d 709, handed down herewith. It is true that here the trusts were not testamentary; but had been set up by a deed of the taxpayer’s ancestor, executed in 1910. The relevant statute is not § 113 (a) (5) of the Act of 1934, 26 U.S.C.A.

Citator

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

Cited by
13 opinions
ARCHBOLD v. HELVERING,115 F.2d 1005(2nd Cir. 1940)
ARCHBOLD v. HELVERING, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and three other
cases.
Nos. 39-42.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
December 2, 1940.
Petitions to Review Orders of the Board of Tax Appeals.

Petitions by Richard Archbold, Adrian Archbold, John Archbold, and Archbold Van Beuren to review orders of the Board of Tax Appeals, 40 B.T.A. 1238, assessing deficiencies in income taxes for the year 1933 imposed by Guy T. Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

Orders affirmed.
William R. Spofford, Thomas Burns Drum, and Charles S. Jacobs, all of Philadelphia, Pa. (Ballard, Spahr, Andrews Ingersoll, of Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for petitioners.

Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. Louis Monarch and Newton K. Fox, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Before L. HAND, SWAN and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This case presents no other questions than those decided in Van Vranken v. Helvering, 2 Cir.,115 F.2d 709, handed down herewith. It is true that here the trusts were not testamentary; but had been set up by a deed of the taxpayer's ancestor, executed in 1910. The relevant statute is not § 113(a)(5) of the Act of 1934, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Acts, page 697, but § 113(a)(4) of the Act of 1932, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Acts, page 515, and that has remained unchanged from the time of its first enactment in 1921. This might have required some separate consideration, if we had depended upon the changes in § 113(a)(5) in reaching our conclusion; but we didPage 1006not. Again, there was in 1933 no regulation interpreting § 113(a) (4), but that too is not important, for we have not depended upon the regulation of 1934 in our reasoning in Van Vranken v. Helvering. Our discussion there can therefore serve here.

Orders affirmed.Page 28