Whittell

Whittell v. McLaughlin

Good Law
29 F.2d 208
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1928No. 17758California563 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Bourquin, J.

Plaintiff sues to recover part of gift taxes by her paid, on the theory that by mistake she had overvalued the gift.

It appears that in 1924 she and her son George incorporated the Whittell Investment Company to hold, manage, and own their properties by them, and as heirs derived from and in the estate of her deceased husband, distributed and undistributed. To that end they took to themselves all the capital stock of said corporation!, in exchange for all said properties. In so far as the undistributed part of said estate is concerned, although no formal deed of assignment was by her executed, and executors of whom George, but not she, was one, had exclusive custody and control of the estate, the books of said corporation contained entries of the fact, the assignment was a fact, and its existence is inferable from the conduct of the parties to it, both treating it as a fact accomplished. Of this estate, she was entitled to three-fourths, George one-fourth, and the stock of said corporation issued to them in like proportions.

Thereafter, and in June, 1924, she .gave George one-fourth of said stock, to equalize their interests in the properties. In her tax return thereof she took…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.