- 23 -
item" as both corpus and income, which sufficed to satisfy the
requirements of Bull v. United States. See Boyle v. United
States, 355 F.2d at 236.
The Court of Appeals distinguished Rothensies v. Electric
Storage Battery Co., on the grounds that in Rothensies v.
Electric Storage Battery Co., the taxpayer "waited over twenty
years to seek a refund",12 and the facts in Boyle were much
closer to the facts in Bull than were the circumstances of the
taxpayer in Rothensies v. Electric Storage Battery Co. See Boyle
v. United States, 355 F.2d at 236-237.
In O'Brien v. United States, supra, decedent's estate paid
estate tax on the stock of a closely held corporation, which it
valued at $215.7796 per share. In the year following the
decedent's death, the Government determined a deficiency in the
estate tax, asserting a higher value of the stock, and the
taxpayer (one of decedent's heirs) filed a petition to the Tax
Court. While the valuation issue was pending, the corporation
was liquidated, and, for the purpose of calculating the resulting
capital gain reportable on his income tax return, the taxpayer
used the value of the shares reported on the estate tax return.
The Government did not dispute this valuation and accepted the
payment of income tax on the gain arising from the liquidation.
12Thus, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit indicated
that in any equitable claim, an equitable defense, such as
laches, may bar the claim.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011