1941 BTA LEXIS 1202 | B.T.A. | 1941
Lead Opinion
OPINION.
The Commissioner determined a deficiency of $1,191.96 in estate tax. The Board adopts the stipulation of the parties as its findings of fact. The only issue for decision is whether' there should be included in the gross estate the value of property which the decédent gave to her husband in 1930. . . •
The decedent and her husband have resided in Louisiana at .all times material hereto. They were married in 1909. The decedent,
The laws of Louisiana gave the decedent the absolute right to revoke the gift at any time
The petitioner reviews the legislative history of this provision in an effort to show that the purpose of various changes was, in each case, to plug some loophole which permitted avoidance, but the loophole resulting from a law-given right of revocation was neither closed nor intended to be closed until the 1936 amendment, which does not apply retroactively to this gift made before its enactment. He argues that the amendments prior to 1936 were all designed to cover cases where the right was purposely reserved when it could have been, surrendéred, whereas here the donor not only failed to reserve any right but could not avoid or relinquish the right given her by- latv.
The statutory language here relied upon was the same in the 1926 Act as in the amendments up to' and including that of 1934. The changes made in section 805 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1936 need not be invoked. Futhermore, that amendment did not change the law in respect to a case like this. The amendment retains all of the words of the prior provision relied upon here and adds parenthetically, after “the exercise of a power”, “in whatever capacity exercisable” and, likewise, adds later the words “without regard m when or from what source the decedent acquired such power.” The words “in whatever capacity exercisable” add nothing for the purposes of this case. These changes were “made necessary largely by reason of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of White v. Poor * * *.” House Committee Rept. No. 2818, on H. R. 12793, 74th Cong., 2d sess. The legislators believed that the chaliges were
Decision will be entered for-the respondent.
Art'iclft 3749 of the Revised Civil Code of Louisiana provides that “All donations made between married persons, during marriage, though termed inter vivos, shall always be revocable.’* ,
“The revocation may be made by the wife, without her being authorized to that effect by the husband, or by a court of justice.”