Baumgartner v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. Held, following Henry cappellini et al.,14 B.T.A. 1269, that petitioner, having invoked before this Board the aid of section 316 of the Revenue Act of 1926, can not here attack its validity. 2. The whole value of the community property of a husband and wife residing in California should, upon the death of the husband, be included, for Federal Estate-tax purposes, in his gross estate. 3. The allowance of a claim in abatement of an estate tax by the Commissioner does not…
Read the full summary
1. Held, following Henry cappellini et al.,14 B.T.A. 1269, that petitioner, having invoked before this Board the aid of section 316 of the Revenue Act of 1926, can not here attack its validity. 2. The whole value of the community property of a husband and wife residing in California should, upon the death of the husband, be included, for Federal Estate-tax purposes, in his gross estate. 3. The allowance of a claim in abatement of an estate tax by the Commissioner does not preclude him from reconsidering and making a redetermination of the tax, provided he does so within the statutory period…
1Opinion of the Court
LULU VANCE BAUMGARTNER, TRANSFEREE, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
Baumgartner v. Commissioner
Docket No. 24828.
United States Board of Tax Appeals
21 B.T.A. 623; 1930 BTA LEXIS 1818;
December 11, 1930, Promulgated
1. Held, following Henry cappellini et al.,14 B.T.A. 1269, that petitioner, having invoked before this Board the aid of section 316 of the Revenue Act of 1926, can not here attack its validity.
2. The whole value of the community property of a husband and wife residing in California should, upon the death of the husband, be included, for Federal Estate-tax…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cappellini v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929
- Baumgartner v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930