Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

Forest G. SMITH, Jr., and Rose Mary Smith, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

BROWNING, Circuit Judge.

Having examined the record and the pertinent authorities, we are satisfied that the decision of the Tax Court must be affirmed.

1. We do not read the stipulation filed with the Tax Court as precluding consideration of evidence extrinsic to the documents of sale bearing upon the intent of the taxpayer and the purchaser; and, of course, the parole evidence rule could not have that effect as between the Commissioner and the taxpayer. Thorsness v. United States, 260 F.2d 341, 345 (7th Cir. 1958), and cases cited; Stern v. Commissioner, 137 F.2d 43, 46 (2d Cir. 1943).

2. The court properly held, as a matter of statutory construction, that the assumption of personal obligations of a taxpayer by a solvent third person may be treated as "money received" by the taxpayer, within the meaning of Section 1001(b) of the 1954 Code, to the amount of the obligations assumed. Cf. Crane v. Commissioner, 331 U.S. 1, 12-14, 67 S.Ct. 1047, 91 L.Ed. 1301 (1947); Commissioner v. Fortee Properties, Inc., 211 F.2d 915, 916 (2d Cir., 1954); Parker v. Delaney, 186 F.2d 455, 458 (1st Cir., 1950); R. O'Dell Sons Co. v. Commissioner, 169 F.2d 247, 248 (3d Cir., 1948); Mendham Corporation v. Commissioner, 9 T.C. 320 (1947).

3. The essential findings of fact of the Tax Court are not clearly erroneous.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SMITH v. C.I.R
(Nov 27, 1963)