U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1958

Leon Rosenfield, as Administrator, D.B.N.C.T.A. Of Estate of George D. Beaston, Deceased v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided May 12, 1958 · Goodrich, McLAUGHLIN, Per Curiam, Staley

254 F.2d 940; 1 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2169; 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5654 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Herbert M. Linsenberg, Philadelphia, Pa. (Leon Meltzer, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant., S. Dee Hanson, Washington, D. C. (Charles K. .Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, A. F. Prescott, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Harold K. Wood, U. S. Atty., Norman C. Henss, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Estate of Mapes v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 1992)
Dougherty v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1974)
Estate of Ryan v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1974)
Estate of Stamos v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1970)
Conlorez Corp. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1968)
West v. United States (United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas 1988)
Maid-Rite Steak Co., Inc. v. United States (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1986)
Estate of Silvester v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1977)
Gimbel Bros. v. United States (Court of Claims 1976)
Estate of Bradley v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1974)
National Lead Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (2d Cir. 1964)
Loren T. Raymond and Corrine Raymond v. United States (6th Cir. 1959)

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

PER CURIAM.

The Internal Revenue Code of 1939 permits the representative of an estate the election of evaluating the assets in the gross estate either as of the date of death or one year after death. 26 U.S.C. § 811 (1952 ed.). Section 81.11 of Treasury Regulation 105 provides that “In no case may the election be exercised, or a previous election changed, after the expiration of the time for the filing of the return.”

The administrator d. b. n. c. t. a. in this case seeks a refund of additional estate tax assessed by the Commissioner. The additional tax was the result of the original executor’s apparent election manifested on the estate’s return to have the assets valued one year from date of death. It is the administrator’s argument here that the apparent election was not binding and irrevocable because it was made upon a mistake as to the consequences of that election.

The district court entered judgment for defendant, relying on Section 81.11 of Treasury Regulation 105 and analogous tax cases denying the right to change the election after date for filing has passed. D.C.E.D.Pa.1957, 156 F.Supp. 780. The election here was made upon a full disclosure of facts. It is therefore binding, and we can add nothing to the opinion of the district court.

• The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.