Nos. 12777-12780 | D.C. Cir. | Feb 2, 1956
These are petitions to review decisions of the District of Columbia Tax Court in inheritance tax cases. That court disposed of the cases in a careful, somewhat elaborate opinion. We shall not attempt to restate the whole of the matter but will indicate the controlling features.
The decedent was John F. McCarron. He had a brother, Joseph, who had a wife, Honoria, and she was a niece of John’s wife. The family was closely knit. Some years prior to presently pertinent events Honoria held title to a dwelling house, three floors with basement. She and Joseph, with their daughters, occupied the first floor and base
The Tax Court held the deed was effective but was in contemplation of death. It held the agreement made by John and Honoria created a valid trust as to the property and John was the trustee. It held Honoria was at all times the real owner and the transfer effectuated by the deed was pursuant to the agreement between her and John. It held the transfer not taxable.
It seems plain that the decedent had only a life estate in the property, Hon-oria retaining the beneficial interest in the remainder, as a result of the agreement between them. The testimony of Honoria, an interested party, might not in itself have been sufficient to establish this, but it was corroborated by the testimony of other disinterested parties and by the fact that the decedent recognized his obligation and executed his trust.
Affirmed.
. It may be noted too that under the terms of Item I of the will the tax here involved would in any event be payable by the residuary legatee (the widow) rather than by Honoria.
. District of Columbia v. Lloyd, 82 U.S. App.D.C. 70, 160 F.2d 581" court="D.C. Cir." date_filed="1947-03-17" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/district-of-columbia-v-lloyd-1510565?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1510565">160 F.2d 581 (D.C.Cir. 1947); District of Columbia v. Wilson, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 399, 216 F.2d 630" court="D.C. Cir." date_filed="1954-11-04" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/district-of-columbia-v-edith-bolling-wilson-235016?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="235016">216 F.2d 630 (D.C. Cir.1954).
. We think this would be true whether or not tho deed was validly delivered. Hence we need not and do not pass on the validity of the delivery. In any event all parties to this appeal appear to assume valid delivery.
Cf. District of Columbia v. Wilson, supra note 2; Reed v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 36 F.2d 867" court="5th Cir." date_filed="1930-01-07" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/reed-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-1473145?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1473145">36 F.2d 867 (5 Cir., 1930).
. 88 U.S.App.D.C. 170, 187 F.2d 217" court="D.C. Cir." date_filed="1951-02-01" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/slyder-v-district-of-columbia-226595?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="226595">187 F.2d 217 (D. C.Cir.1951).