Rosenfeld

Rosenfeld v. Scott

Good Law
232 F. 509·1916 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1680
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 8, 1916No. 14,615California1,111 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Van, J.

On the former trial this court held that the interests upon which the tax was assessed and collected were entirely contingent, beneficial interests, not vested in possession and enjoyment, and hence, under the doctrine of Vanderbilt v. Eidman, 196 U. S. 480 , 25 Sup. Ct. 331, 49 L. Ed. 563 , and other cases following it, were not subject to tax under the War Revenue Act, and that the tax was illegal and void. Judgment was accordingly given for the recovery of the entire tax. The Circuit Court of Appeals, while sustaining the view of this court that the corpus of the legacies under the will of John Rosenfeld had not vested at the time of assessment, and were not subject to the tax in gross, held that, under the principle announced in the later case of United States v. Fidelity Trust Co., 222 U. S. 158 , 32 Sup. Ct. 59, 56 L. Ed. 137 (decided pending the appeal), the rights given the beneficiaries by the will to receive the income of the legacies “were rights which were vested at the time of the assessments which were made thereon and were subject to tire war revenue tax, and assessable, not upon the gross amount of the legacy, but upon the vdlue of the rights to receive the annual…

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.