Elizabeth Susan (Betty Sue) Strake Trust v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

7 Citing cases

  1. Matthies v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    134 T.C. 141 (U.S.T.C. 2010)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that the insurer's acceptance of the stated account value of a life insurance policy as payment in full of a single premium due on a replacement policy supported the conclusion that the entire cash value of the exchanged policy should be determined without regard to surrender charges

    Instead it was an arrangement by which an employer transferred valuable property to his employees in recognition of their services.” Id.; see also Commissioner v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177, 65 S.Ct. 591, 89 L.Ed. 830 (1945) (holding that the bargain element of an employer's bargain sale of stock to an employee represented taxable income to the employee); Lowndes v. United States, 384 F.2d 635 (4th Cir.1967); Haag v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 488, 1963 WL 1570 (1963), affd. 334 F.2d 351 (8th Cir.1964); Waldheim v. Commissioner, 25 T.C. 839, 850–851, 1956 WL 777 (1956), affd. 244 F.2d 1 (7th Cir.1957); Strake Trust v. Commissioner, 1 T.C. 1131, 1943 WL 181 (1943). The transfer from the profit-sharing plan to petitioner was pursuant to a prearranged plan for him to use IRA funds to buy life insurance through the profit-sharing plan, which was established for this purpose and with the expectation that it would shortly thereafter distribute the policy to petitioner.

  2. Riss v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    56 T.C. 388 (U.S.T.C. 1971)

    Having arrived at the above conclusions, it only remains for us to determine whether the sale to Richard was ‘in purpose or effect,‘ Palmer v. Commissioner, supra, equivalent to a dividend. In arriving at such a determination we need not be influenced by the fact that the transaction in question took the form of a sale as opposed to that of a formal dividend declaration, see Elizabeth Suzan Strake Trust, 1 T.C. 1131, 1136 (1943), or that the intent of the parties was to avoid a distribution of earnings, A. A. Emmerson, 44 T.C. 86 (1965). For, as stated in Lester E. Dellinger, supra:

  3. Haag v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    40 T.C. 488 (U.S.T.C. 1963)   Cited 3 times

    or employees.Sec. 1.301-1(j), Income Tax Regs.; Lester E. Dellinger, 32 T.C. 1178 (1959); Elizabeth Susan Strake Trust, 1 T.C. 1131 (1943). Sec. 1.61-2(d)(2), Income Tax Regs.; Commissioner v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177 (1945); Albert Russel Erskine, 26 B.T.A. 147 (1932).

  4. Dellinger v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    32 T.C. 1178 (U.S.T.C. 1959)   Cited 11 times

    Substantially the same language employed in this regulation has appeared in prior regulations relating to corporate distributions, and has repeatedly received court approval. Elizabeth Susan Strake Trust, 1 T.C. 1131 (1943), and cases cited therein. In Timberlake v. Commissioner, 132 F.2d 259 (C.A. 4, 1942), affirming 46 B.T.A. 1082 (1942), the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considered the question of bargain purchases by shareholders similar to the ones involved herein.

  5. Waldheim v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    25 T.C. 839 (U.S.T.C. 1956)

    Assuming for the purposes here that his position as to the 333 1/3 shares formerly held by him is well taken, the facts still show that in being permitted to purchase the shares formerly owned by Jack Waldheim for $7,500 he was enriched by at least $25,833.33, the net effect of which was a distribution to him in that amount by Waldheim & Company. Elizabeth Susan Strake Trust, 1 T.C. 1131, is directly in point and we accordingly conclude and hold that to the extent of the 1945 earnings of the company not otherwise distributed the said distribution was a dividend within the meaning of section 115(a)(2) and taxable to Stanley as such. It thus becomes unnecessary to pass upon the claims and contentions of the parties relating to the dividend issue.

  6. Hearst Corp. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    14 T.C. 575 (U.S.T.C. 1950)   Cited 4 times

    Petitioner's second proposition is that, if the amount in question was not properly deductible as interest because the parent in effect received the benefit of it, it was tantamount to a transfer of profits to the parent, which is frequently held to be the equivalent of the distribution of a dividend. Elizabeth Susan Strake Trust, 1 T.C. 1131; Commissioner v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (C.C.A., 2d Cir.), 114 Fed.(2d) 774; certiorari denied, 322 U.S. 751; Palmer v. Commissioner, 302 U.S. 63; Hugh H. Miller, 25 B.T.A. 418; V. U. Young, 5 T.C. 1251; Limericks, Inc., 7 T.C. 1129, 1136; affd. (C.C.A., 5th Cir.), 165 Fed.(2d) 483. The payment of a dividend would, equally with the payment of interest, constitute a deduction from personal holding company income

  7. Shunk v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    10 T.C. 293 (U.S.T.C. 1948)   Cited 4 times

    78, should be taxed to petitioners in proportion to their interests in the trust estate. Timberlake v. Commissioner, 132 Fed.(2d) 259; Elizabeth Susan Strake Trust, 1 T.C. 1131; cf. Langstaff v. Lucas, 9 Fed.(2d) 691. Reviewed by the Court.