Fry's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- C.E. Robertson v. PSERS and Greater Johnstown Career and Technology Center (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017)
- Wilkins v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1970)
- United States v. Ophelia Johnson and Ophelia R. Johnson, as Under the Last Will and Testament of Clifford L. Johnson, Deceased (5th Cir. 1964)
- Bolden v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1963)
- Judkins v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1959)
- Rieben v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1959)
- Gordon v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1956)
- Oliphint v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1955)
- Baillie v. Public School Employees' Retirement Board (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010)
- Patty R. Smith v. United States (6th Cir. 1972)
- Richard N. Gunnison and Vivian E. Gunnison v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (7th Cir. 1972)
- Wilkins v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1970)
- E. N. Funkhouser and Estate of Nellie S. Funkhouser, Deceased, E. N. Funkhouser v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (4th Cir. 1967)
- Murphy v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1966)
- Lauinger v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1963)
- Philip J. McGowan and Lorraine McGowan v. United States (7th Cir. 1960)
- Estate of Rieben v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1959)
- Buckley v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1957)
- Buckley v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1957)
- Oliphint v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1955)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
This is a petition to review a decision of the Tax Court. The question presented is whether a lump sum payment to the decedent in 1947 from an employees’ pension trust established by his employer was taxable to him as a capital gain or as if it were an annuity. The payment was made to the decedent upon his certification that he had reached the retirement age of 70 years but it appeared that he thereafter continued to render some services to his employer and continued to receive from his employer the same compensation which he had previously received. The Tax Court held that the payment was not made “on account of the employee’s separation from the service” within the meaning of the exception clause of Section 165(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 165(b), and hence was taxable to him under that section “as if it were an annuity” rather than as capital gain. The Court accordingly upheld the deficiency in tax determined by the Commissioner on that basis. We find ourselves in complete accord with the conclusions of the Tax Court for the reasons slated in the opinion filed for the court in banc by Judge Hill. 19 T.C. 461.
The decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.