U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1966

Title & Trust Company of Florida v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided May 12, 1966 · Wisdom, Coleman, Hughes

360 F.2d 285; 17 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 959 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

George Stelljes, Jr., Francis P. Con-roy, Marks, Gray, Yates, Conroy & Gibbs, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant., John B. Jones, Jr., Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Crombie J. D. Garrett, Edward I. Heilbronner, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Edward F. Boardman, U. S. Atty., James H. Walsh, Asst. U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., Richard M. Roberts, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Rothwacks, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Title & Trust Co. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1972)
The Title Guarantee Company v. The United States (Court of Claims 1970)
Herren v. United States (District Court, S.D. Texas 1970)

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 sole issue in this case is whether Section 832(b) (4) of the Internal Revenue Code permits the taxpayer, the appellant corporation, to deduct from its taxable income the “reserve for unearned income” established by it pursuant to the mandatory requirements of Section 625.111 of the Florida Statutes.

Both parties filed motions for summary judgment.

During the years in question the taxpayer failed to segregate the amount of reserve from its general funds and to make the appropriate accounting entries in its books.

*286 In a well reasoned opinion, reported at 243 F.Supp. 42 (M.D.Fla. 1965), the District Judge held that since the taxpayer “had unfettered control and use of the premiums” during the years for which it claims a deduction, “it cannot now assert that it was entitled to exclude such premiums.” 1

The opinion of the District Court is adopted by this Court and the judgment is affirmed.

. 243 F.Supp. at 44.

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