Estate of Frank A. Branson - Page 22




                                       - 22 -                                         

          States, 766 F.2d 1038 (7th Cir. 1985), revg. 582 F. Supp. 203               
          (C.D. Ill. 1984); Estate of Vitt v. United States, 706 F.2d 871             
          (8th Cir. 1983); United States v. Herring, 240 F.2d 225 (4th Cir.           
          1957); and United States v. Bowcut, 287 F.2d 654 (9th Cir. 1961).           
               In Boyle v. United States, supra, the decedent died in 1953            
          owning preferred stock with more than 20 years of accumulated               
          undeclared dividends (the arrearages).  The decedent's assets               
          were transferred to his estate, including the value of the                  
          arrearages, and the estate tax was paid accordingly.  In 1954,              
          the executors distributed the preferred stock among the four                
          beneficiaries under the will.                                               
               Later, the beneficiaries, on receiving those arrearages,               
          declared their receipt and listed them as nontaxable income on              
          their tax returns.  In 1958, after the period of limitations had            
          expired to claim a refund of the estate taxes, the Government               
          determined deficiencies in the beneficiaries' income tax because            
          of their reporting position with respect to the dividends.  The             
          beneficiaries paid the income tax deficiencies and brought a suit           
          for refund.  The District Court denied them equitable recoupment            
          against the time-barred estate tax, holding that the single-                
          transaction test of Rothensies v. Electric Storage Battery Co.,             
          supra, was not satisfied.  See Boyle v. United States, 232 F.               
          Supp. at 549-550.  The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit               
          reversed, finding that there was "double taxation of the single             





Page:  Previous  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011