Johnson v. Zink

5 Citing cases

  1. Montclair Trust Co. v. Zink

    57 A.2d 372 (N.J. 1948)   Cited 8 times

    Tax consciousness, like death consciousness, becomes significant in these cases only in proportion to its degree. Cf.Avery v. Walsh, 138 N.J. Eq. 80; 46 Atl. Rep. 2d 912;Johnson v. Zink, 140 N.J. Eq. 255; 54 Atl. Rep. 2d 123;Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Walsh, 141 N.J. Eq. 181. I conclude that the taxability of the specified inter vivos transfers of the decedent is not adequately sustained by the evidence, and a decree directing an annulment of the assessment levied upon them will be advised.

  2. Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Walsh

    56 A.2d 591 (N.J. 1948)   Cited 3 times

    Cf. Plum v. Martin, 132 N.J. Eq. 1; 26 Atl. Rep. 2d 529. It is not evident that the donor was a tax-conscious person. Cf. Avery v. Walsh, 138N.J. Eq. 80; 46 Atl. Rep. 2d 912; Johnson v. Zink,140 N.J. Eq. 255; 54 Atl. Rep. 2d 123. Her state of health was not then such as to cause her to believe that death was proximately impending. A state of genuine love and affection is a very potential passion which transcends and ignores the considerations and advantages of tax evasions.

  3. In re Fiedler

    55 N.J. Super. 500 (App. Div. 1959)   Cited 2 times

    1939); Plum v. Martin, 132 N.J. Eq. 1 ( Prerog. 1942); Johnson v. Zink, 140 N.J. Eq. 255 ( Prerog. 1947). Generally, the proper method of establishing the value of such stocks in closely held corporations for purposes of distribution where there exists no ready available market for sale is the net or book value method which involves an appraisal of all of the corporate real and personal assets and a deduction therefrom of corporate liabilities.

  4. Nazzaro v. Neeld

    18 N.J. Super. 56 (App. Div. 1952)   Cited 3 times
    In Nazzaro v. Neeld, 18 N.J. Super. 56 (App. Div. 1952), for example, the Appellate Division addressed whether the transfer was intended to take effect at the transferor's death.

    1942). Citations of later decisions are congregated in Johnson v. Zink, 140 N.J. Eq. 255 ( Prerog. 1947), to which may be added: Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Walsh, 141 N.J. Eq. 181 ( Prerog. 1948); Montclair Trust Co. v. Zink, 141 N.J. Eq. 401 ( Prerog.

  5. Corry v. Passaic Nat. Bank and Trust Co.

    3 N.J. Super. 569 (Ch. Div. 1949)   Cited 3 times

    " See, also, In re Hall, 94 N.J. Eq. 398, 119 A. 669, 99 N.J.L. 1, 125 A. 426; 100 N.J.L. 405, 126 A. 924; In re Moore, 104 N.J. Eq. 400, 145 A. 727; In re Deutz, 105 N.J. Eq. 671, 149 A. 257; Johnson v. Zink, 140 N.J. Eq. 255, 54 A.2d 123. The plaintiff properly followed the theory enunciated in these cases in calculating the value of the good will and adopted ten years as the "number of years purchase."