U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1962

Charles Howard Candler, Jr., and the Trust Company of Georgia v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided May 30, 1962 · Tuttle, Rives, Jones

303 F.2d 439; 9 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1965; 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4963 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

M. E. Kilpatrick, Harold E. Abrams, Atlanta, Ga., Smith, Kilpatrick, Cody, Rogers & McClatchey, Atlanta, Ga., of counsel, for appellants., Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Lee A. Jackson, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Robert N. Anderson, Atty., Dept. of Justice, John A. Bailey, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Myron C. Baum, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Charles L. Goodson, U. S. Atty., Slayton L. Clemmons, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Clapp v. Cass County (N.D. 1975)
Wells v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1968)
Douglas B. Cartwright, as of the Estate of Ethel B. Bennett v. United States (2d Cir. 1972)
In re Estate of Hart (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County 1971)
In re the Estate of Behm (New York Surrogate's Court 1962)

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.

Charles Howard Candler died possessed of a large estate which included United States Treasury Bonds of the par or face value of $400,000. The bonds were quoted on the date of his death at a value of $351,087.50. Such bonds were available for payment of Federal estate taxes at their par value and were so used. The appellants, as executors of the decedent, asserted in their suit for a tax refund that the bonds should be valued for estate tax purposes at the quoted market rather .than at their par or face value. The district court resolved the issue for the Government. We agree with its decision. Bankers Trust Company v. United States, 2nd Cir. 1960, 284 F.2d 537. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

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