Wolder v. Commissioner

Wolder v. Commissioner
Wolder v. Commissioner
Court	United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case name	Wolder v. Commissioner
Argued	December 19, 1973
Decided	February 21, 1974
Citation(s)	493 F.2d 608 (2d Cir. 1974); 74-1 USTC (CCH) ¶ 12,982; 74-1 USTC (CCH) ¶ 9266
Case history
Prior history	58 T.C. 974
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting	Henry Friendly, Walter Roe Mansfield, James Lowell Oakes
Case opinions
Majority	Oakes, joined by Friendly, Mansfield
Laws applied
	Internal Revenue Code

Last updated July 07, 2021

Wolder v. Commissioner, 493 F.2d 608 (2d Cir. 1974)^[1] the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided whether 26 U.S.C. 102(a)'s exclusion of "bequests" from gross income^[2] included those made in consideration for services and whether the "detached and disinterested" standard applied to gifts made at death-time.^[3]

Facts

Victor R. Wolder represented Marguerite K. Boyce as her attorney. In a written agreement with Boyce, Wolder agreed to render legal services "from time to time as long as both… shall live and not to bill her for such services." In exchange, Boyce promised to make a codicil to her will giving Wolder stock or securities from her estate. Wolder provided legal services without billing Boyce and she revised her will, bequeathing to him $15,845 and 750 shares of stock.

Arguments

Wolder argued the bequests received from Boyce were excluded from income under § 102(a). He believed "bequest" in 102(a) had been interpreted by the courts to include bequests made for consideration between the beneficiary and decedent. In support of his argument Wolder cited United States v. Merriam, 263 U.S. 179 (1923)^[4] which allowed recipients under a will to exclude bequests received "in lieu of all compensation or commissions to which they would otherwise be entitled as executors or trustees" from their income.

Reasoning

First, the court found Merriam inapplicable because there was a dispute as to whether the parties had, in fact, contracted for services, whereas it was undisputed that Wolder and Boyce had contracted and performed. Second, in Commissioner v. Duberstein ^[5] the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to determine whether a transfer is a bona fide gift, examining the parties' intent and motives, their performance, and whether the transfer was the product of a "detached and disinterested generosity."

The court also noted that section § 102 is an exception to Congress' intent to form a comprehensive definition of income in § 61(a), which defines gross income as "all income from whatever sources derived." The court looked past the label Wolder and Boyce attached to their transfer finding that their intent was to provide compensation for services in the form of a bequest.

Holding

The bequests received by Wolder were not excluded from income under § 102(a). Wolder and Boyce entered into and satisfied the obligations of a contract for services providing for a "postponed payment" in the form of a bequest.

Related Research Articles

A gift tax is a tax imposed on the transfer of ownership of property during the giver's life. The United States Internal Revenue Service says that a gift is "Any transfer to an individual, either directly or indirectly, where full compensation is not received in return."

A bequest is property given by will. Historically, the term bequest was used for personal property given by will and deviser for real property. Today, the two words are used interchangeably.

For households and individuals, gross income is the sum of all wages, salaries, profits, interest payments, rents, and other forms of earnings, before any deductions or taxes. It is opposed to net income, defined as the gross income minus taxes and other deductions.

Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code defines "gross income," the starting point for determining which items of income are taxable for federal income tax purposes in the United States. Section 61 states that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived [. .. ]". The United States Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that Congress intended to express its full power to tax incomes to the extent that such taxation is permitted under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States and under the Constitution's Sixteenth Amendment.

Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 279 U.S. 716 (1929), was an income tax case before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161 (1925), was a case before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the taxability, under United States tax law, of a divided interest in a bequest. It is notable for the following holding:

Marrita Murphy and Daniel J. Leveille, Appellants v. Internal Revenue Service and United States of America, Appellees, is a controversial tax case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit originally held that the taxation of emotional distress awards by the federal government is unconstitutional. That decision was vacated, or rendered void, by the Court on December 22, 2006. The Court eventually overturned its original decision, finding against Murphy in an opinion issued on July 3, 2007.

Commissioner v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278 (1960), was a United States Supreme Court case from 1960 dealing with the exclusion of "the value of property acquired by gift" from the gross income of an income taxpayer.

Hornung v. Commissioner is a case heard by the United States Tax Court in 1967.

Olk v. United States, 536 F.2d 876, 76-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 9484, cert. denied, 429 U.S. 920, 97 S. Ct. 317 (1976), was a case decided before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which dealt with the question of whether tips to casino dealers were taxable as income to the dealers under Internal Revenue Code section 61 or, alternatively, nontaxable gifts under Internal Revenue Code section 102(a).

United States v. Gotcher, 401 F.2d 118, is a tax case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

United States v. Harris, 942 F.2d 1125 was a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dealing with the exclusion of the value of property acquired by "gift" from the gross income of two income taxpayers.

Tax protesters in the United States advance a number of constitutional arguments asserting that the imposition, assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates the United States Constitution. These kinds of arguments, though related to, are distinguished from statutory and administrative arguments, which presuppose the constitutionality of the income tax, as well as from general conspiracy arguments, which are based upon the proposition that the three branches of the federal government are involved together in a deliberate, on-going campaign of deception for the purpose of defrauding individuals or entities of their wealth or profits. Although constitutional challenges to U.S. tax laws are frequently directed towards the validity and effect of the Sixteenth Amendment, assertions that the income tax violates various other provisions of the Constitution have been made as well.

Bogardus v. Commissioner, 302 U.S. 34 (1937), was a United States Supreme Court case discussing, under United States tax law, how to distinguish compensation from tax-exempt gifts under § 102(a). It is notable for the following holdings:

Poyner v. Commissioner 301 F.2d 287 is a United States tax law case that discusses whether "special death benefits" paid to an employee's widow are exempt from taxes as a gift under §102(a).

Farid-Es-Sultaneh v. Commissioner, 160 F.2d 812 is a United States federal income tax case. It is notable for the following holding:

Benaglia v. Commissioner 36 B.T.A. 838 (1937) is a United States income tax case heard in the U.S. Board of Tax Appeals, discussing when an employee can exclude employer-provided benefits from his income. The Board held that a taxpayer employee may exclude the value of food and lodging received from his employer, if he receives it solely for the convenience of his employer and as a necessary incident of the proper performance of his duty. The meals-and-lodging exclusion has been formalized as §119 in the tax code.

Early v. Commissioner, 445 F.2d 166 was a United States income tax case, holding that an agreement between taxpayers and heirs of decedent—pursuant to which taxpayers received a joint life interest in income from the trust estate in return for the surrender of stock allegedly given to them by the decedent—was actually a compromise of the taxpayers' disputed right to the stock, and since they claimed the stock as donees, they were to be treated as having acquired their life estate in that capacity for federal income tax purposes.

Estate of Sydney J. Carter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 453 F.2d 61, was a United States Federal income tax case decided by Judge Henry Friendly of the Second Circuit Court.

Commissioner v. LoBue, 351 U.S. 243 (1956), was an income tax case before the United States Supreme Court.

References

↑ Wolder v. Commissioner, 493F.2d608 (2d Cir.1974).
↑ 26 U.S.C. 102(a).
↑ See Donaldson, Samuel A., Federal Income Taxation of Individuals: Cases, Problems and Materials, 107 (2nd. Ed. 2007).
↑ United States v. Merriam, 263U.S.179 (1923).
↑ Commissioner v. Duberstein , 363U.S.278 (1960).