McLaughlin

Parrott Estate Co. v. McLaughlin

Good Law
89 F.2d 188·19 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 290·19 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 290·1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3423
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 29, 1937No. 8080California2,394 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Wilbur, J.

The appellant seeks to recover income taxes amounting to $1,086.47 because in estimating the taxes the Commissioner refused a deduction from appellant’s gross income of the sum of $11,524.03 which it had paid during the year ending December 31, 1926, as inheritance taxes levied by the state of California. It appeals from the judgment against it.

The appellant corporation was organized as a family corporation by the heirs, legatees, devisees, and distributees of the estate of Mary Emily Parrott, deceased. Under the law of California, this tax was upon the right of succession of the several legatees and devisees under the will of. Mary Emily Parrott and constituted a lien upon the estate. Cal.Stats.1921, pp. 1500, 1503, 1506, §§ 3, 7; In re Estate of Letchworth, 201 Cal. 1 , 255 P. 195 ; United States v. Kombst, 286 U.S. 424 , 52 S.Ct. 616 , 76 L.Ed. 1201 . The executors were required by the law of California to pay the tax before distribution, or to see that it was paid. Cal.Stats.1921, p. 1510, §§ 9, 10. In default of payment, it continued a lien upon the property until paid. Id. section 9 (1). The appellant alleged that it paid the tax “upon and in behalf of and as agent and…

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.