Legal Opinion · Dissent

Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago v. The United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided November 15, 1968No. 396-65Published

1DissentDavis, Judge

On the undisputed facts I would hold that paragraph (3) of Section 2055(a) of Title 26 permits the deduction, and therefore I would not reach plaintiff’s alternative contentions that the bequest is also deductible under paragraph (2) of Section 2055(a) or exempted by the Treaty.

I

The general rule that a tax deduction is allowable only if specifically authorized in the Internal Revenue Code (e. g., New Colonial Ice Co., Inc. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440, 54 S.Ct. 788, 78 L.Ed. 1348 (1934)) does not dictate a niggardly construction of Section 2055 (a). The provisions, including 2055(a),…

2Cases cited51 opinions

  1. New Colonial Ice Co. v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  2. Church of the Holy Trinity v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  3. Securities & Exchange Commission v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
  4. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
  5. Ford v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1926

46 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