Legal Opinion

Weil v. Commissioner

United States Board of Tax Appeals

Decided March 20, 1929No. Docket No. 18960Published

1. The common-law doctrine of estates by the entirety exists in Michigan, and upon the death of one spouse there is no transfer of property upon which to impose a tax. 2. Under the laws of Michigan, joint depositors in bank accounts payable to either or the survivor, are joint tenants, and in the absence of evidence establishing the contrary, during their lifetime they are equal owners of the funds.

Read the full summary

1. The common-law doctrine of estates by the entirety exists in Michigan, and upon the death of one spouse there is no transfer of property upon which to impose a tax. 2. Under the laws of Michigan, joint depositors in bank accounts payable to either or the survivor, are joint tenants, and in the absence of evidence establishing the contrary, during their lifetime they are equal owners of the funds. Upon the death of a cotenant his one-half interest passes to the survivor and should be included in the decedent's gross estate.

1Opinion of the Court

SOPHIA WEIL, ADMINISTRATRIX, ESTATE OF JOSEPH WEIL, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

Weil v. Commissioner

Docket No. 18960.

United States Board of Tax Appeals

15 B.T.A. 965; 1929 BTA LEXIS 2756;

March 20, 1929, Promulgated

1. The common-law doctrine of estates by the entirety exists in Michigan, and upon the death of one spouse there is no transfer of property upon which to impose a tax.

2. Under the laws of Michigan, joint depositors in bank accounts payable to either or the survivor, are joint tenants, and in the absence of evidence establishing the contrary, during…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Chase National Bank v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
  2. Hunt v. BlackburnSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  3. Shwab v. DoyleSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  4. Saltonstall v. SaltonstallSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  5. Otto F. Stifel's Union Brewing Co. v. SaxySupreme Court of Missouri · 1918

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API