Loveland v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Estate Tax -- Jointly Held Property -- Money Consideration -- Section 811 (e) (1). -- A wife did not acquire her interest in jointly held property from her husband for a full and adequate consideration in money or money's worth within the meaning of section 811 (e) (1), where she nursed her husband for 48 years and he had agreed she should have $ 12.50 per week for her services to him.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Murdock, Judge:
The Commissioner contends that an agreement on the part of a wife to take care of her husband would be null and void under the laws of Massachusetts, and for this and other reasons the petitioner has failed to show that the wife acquired her interest in the jointly held property from the husband for a full and adequate consideration in money or money’s worth within the meaning of section 811 (e) (1) of the Internal Revenue Code. The cases cited by the Commissioner show, and the petitioner concedes, that a contract of that kind would have been null and void under the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Commissioner v. WemyssSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Merrill v. FahsSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Bergan v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1943
3Cited by5 opinions
- Estate of Silvester v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1977
- Estate of Ehret v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1976
- Estate of Ensley v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1977
- Estate of Law v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1964
- Loveland v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1949