1947 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 289 | Tax Ct. | 1947
Lead Opinion
OPINION.
The effect of section 22 (b) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code
The evidence is, however, not greatly helpful. It is, in this respect, to the effect that the petitioner’s mother, on the dates of actual purchase of the two $25,000 contracts, could have purchased, for a total sum of $30,958.17, life annuities paying the same rates as those purchased, but this does not necessarily prove that the petitioner could have purchased the annuities upon which she wishes to be taxed 3 per cent for the difference between $50,000.and $30,958.1'!. So fa r as this record shows, separate policies, rather than the combined policy purchased in each case, might have cost more in the' aggregate than the combined policy. (Though the actuary’s testimony assumed the age of the mother as 58y2 and that of the daughter as 32y2 years, whereas the Mutual Life contract used ages of 58 and 32 [on December 24, 1936], and the Prudential contract issued on May 18, 1937, showed the ages as 58% and 33; and though the actuary furnished evidence as to a contract producing $85 a month, whereas the Mutual Life Insurance Co. contract produced only $84.58 a month, we do not, considering the conclusions to which we hereinafter come, regard such differences in figures as of importance.) In addition, the computation of two parts of the annuity, as between mother and daughter, as furnished by the actuary, when added together totaled $25,123.54, instead of $25,000, thus indicating that the calculations were not by division of either contract actually purchased. Nor was it shown that either the Prudential or the Mutual Life of New York issued its contract upon the 3 per cent basis, with expenses of 6% per cent, as supposed in the actuary’s computations. The evidence attempting to demonstrate allocation of each of the contracts purchased as between petitioner and her mother was decidedly vague and inconclusive; and we are unable to base conclusions upon it.
Moreover, in our view, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the right to limit her taxation to 3 per cent of some figure representing cost of an annuity after her mother’s demise. The statute speaks of the aggregate premiums or consideration paid for such annuity. We consider this to refer to the annuity purchased. F. A. Gillespie, 38 B. T. A. 673. Of course, if proof is made that the consideration or premiums for the annuity purchased amount to less than some other figure involved, then under the statute the 3 per cent will be applied only to such premiums, Maud Gillespie, 43 B. T. A. 399, in which evidence was adduced that only a part of the property paid was paid for the annuity. There was evidence that the excess was considered a gift or contribution for children and grandchildren, though we found it unnecessary to denominate such excess as gift, or contribution to capital. Here, however, there can be no doubt that the $25,000 involved in each contract was paid for the contract. No part was gift. No part was anything but consideration for what was purchased. It was premium or consideration for the annuity. It would be stretching the idea of the Maud Gillespie case, supra, beyond reason to hold that, because the contract purchased was for the benefit of two people, as to one the money paid could be considered something else than premium or consideration for the annuity, merely because possibly each of the parties might have purchased a contract different from this one they did buy. The contracts were single and not divisible, as shown by the language that an annuity would be paid, terminating with death of the last annuitant. There is no evidence that either the Prudential or the Mutual Life calculated the annuity contracts on the basis of a division between the life expectancies of the mother and daughter, as petitioner’s theory involves. In our view they may not be divided, as petitioner contends.
The petitioner urges that such a conclusion is at war with Congressional intent, which was, it is argued, that the annuitant should recover his investment, which would not, under the above conclusion, eventuate in the lifetime of petitioner. In our opinion the Congressional intent was primarily to tax a reasonable portion of the return upon the investment, but to recognize that some part might be capital. Therefore, considering .that 3 per cent was a reasonable return upon an investment, Congress intended that to that extent the annuity received should be taxable, with exclusion from gross income above 3 per cent. Whether the capital would eventually all be recovered was, in our opinion, no primary concern. It might, or it might not, dependent upon longevity. We are not impressed with petitioner’s argument on the point.
We conclude and hold that petitioner has not shown error in respondent’s contention that each of the contracts here in question was a single contract and that the aggregate premiums or consideration paid for the annuity contracts was $50,000.
Decision will be entered under Rule 50.
SEC. 22. GROSS INCOME.
[[Image here]]
(b) Exclusions From Gross Income. — The following Items shall not be Included In gross Income and shall be exempt from taxation under this chapter:
******
(2) ANNUITIES, ETC.-
* * * Amounts received as an annuity under an annuity or endowment contract shall be Included in gross income; except that there shall be excluded from gross Income the excess of the amount received in the taxable year over an amount equal to 3 per centum of the aggregate premiums or consideration paid for such annuity (whether or not paid during such year), until the aggregate amount excluded from gross income under this chapter or prior income tax laws in respect of such annuity equals the aggregate premiums or consideration paid for such annuity. * • •