From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morristown Trust Co. v. Manning

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Nov 26, 1952
200 F.2d 194 (3d Cir. 1952)

Opinion

No. 10706.

Argued November 3, 1952.

Decided November 26, 1952.

Benjamin Harrow, Sr., New York City (Schenck, Price, Smith King, Morristown, N.J., Arthur L. Harrow, New York City, Harold A. Price, Morristown, N.J., on the brief), for appellant.

Joseph F. Goetten, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen. (Ellis N. Slack, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson and Joseph F. Goetten, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., Grover C. Richman, Jr., U.S. Atty., and Roger M. Yancey, Asst. U.S. Atty., Newark, N.J., on the brief), for appellee.

Before MARIS, GOODRICH and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.


This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the district court dismissing its action brought to recover federal estate tax alleged to have been erroneously exacted by the Collector from the estate of the plaintiff's decedent, Henry W. Williams, who died January 30, 1936. Two questions are involved. The first is whether certain annuity contracts purchased by the decedent payable to himself during his life and after his death to his wife if she should survive him were subject to estate tax as transfers of property "intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment at or after his death" under Section 302(c) of the Revenue Act of 1926, as amended, 26 U.S.C.A. § 811(c). If the first question is answered in the affirmative the second question arises. It is whether the plaintiff is precluded from obtaining a refund of estate tax otherwise admittedly due it, in view of the fact that it has not actually overpaid its tax when one considers its entire estate tax liability, including the tax due with respect to the annuity contracts in question the assessment and collection of which is now barred by the statute of limitations. The district court answered both questions in the affirmative and dismissed the complaint. We are in complete agreement with the conclusions thus reached by the district court for the reasons ably stated in the opinion filed by Chief Judge Forman, 104 F. Supp. 621, to which we need add nothing.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.


Summaries of

Morristown Trust Co. v. Manning

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Nov 26, 1952
200 F.2d 194 (3d Cir. 1952)
Case details for

Morristown Trust Co. v. Manning

Case Details

Full title:MORRISTOWN TRUST CO. v. MANNING

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: Nov 26, 1952

Citations

200 F.2d 194 (3d Cir. 1952)

Citing Cases

Costin v. Cripe

We think it clear that it was the intent to tax, under Section 811(c)(2), all transfers dated prior to…