Stokes v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
Under a trust created by petitioner the trust income was distributable to his children during their minority. Power to withdraw securities or money from the trust was given to petitioner's wife, and a similar power was reserved to petitioner but could be exercised by him only upon the death of the wife. Held that petitioner retained no powers that would bring him within section 166 or 167 of the Revenue Act of 1928, and the trust income is not taxable to him.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Arundell :
The deficiencies determined in these proceedings, $5,373.71 for 1929 and $1,775.31 for 1930, arise out of respondent’s inclusion of certain trust income in the income of petitioner. The respondent’s theory is that petitioner retained a practical control over the trust created by him so that the income is taxable to him under section 166 or 167 of the Revenue Act of 1928.
From the stipulated facts, which are incorporated herein by reference, it appears that by an instrument of trust dated January 11, 1928, petitioner transferred certain securities to the Germantown Trust Co.…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Honnold v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Bassett v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1935
- Grosvenor v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Handly v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Handly v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.