Curry v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Distributions to petitioner as beneficiary of a testamentary trust, out of the income thereof, held taxable to her under section 22 (a) and section 162 (b) of the Revenue Act of 1938 and the Internal Revenue Code, and no part of the distributions constitutes an annuity. Helvering v. Butterworth, 290 U.S. 365.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
ARundell, Judge:
The question presented here is whether the entire amount of taxable income paid over to petitioner as beneficiary of the Harry J. Curry Trust represents income currently distributable, and therefore taxable, to her under the provisions of sections 22 (a) and 162 (b) of the Revenue Act of 1938 and of the Internal Revenue Code, or whether a portion thereof constitutes an annuity not taxable to her by virtue of section 22 (b) (3). The pertinent statutes appear in the margin.2 The answer depends upon the construction of the will of petitioner’s deceased husband, Harry J.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Helvering v. ButterworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Burnet v. WhitehouseSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Frankel v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1944
- In re the Estate of CarrNew York Surrogate's Court · 1941
- Coleman Trust v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1944
3Cited by3 opinions
- Sicanoff Vegetable Oil Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1957
- Curry v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1945
- Sicanoff Vegetable Oil Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1957