Simpson v. United States, 252 U.S. 547 (1920)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 252 U.S. 538, click here.

Simpson v. United States

No. 213

Argued March 17, 18, 1920
Decided April 19, 1920
252 U.S. 547

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS

Syllabus

In computing succession taxes payable under the War Revenue Act of 1898, upon legacies of the net income for life from funds placed with trustees for investment and reinvestment, it was lawful for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to assess the legacies by means of general tables based on approved mortuary tables and on four percent as the assumed value of money. P. 550. 30 Stat. 448, §§ 29, 30; Rev.Stats., §§ 321, 3182.

The court takes judicial notice that at the time when the taxes involved in this case were collected, four percent was very generally assumed to be the fair value or earning power of money safely invested. P. 550.

Where a will directed conversion of residuary estate into money and its payment by the executors to a trustee of their selection, in trust for certain legatees, and where the trustee had been selected and the payments largely made, and there remained funds of the estate, clearly exceeding the requirements of pending claims, the payment of which to the trustee had become a duty of the executors enforceable by the legatees under the state law, held that the interests of the legatees in such funds were vested, within the meaning of the Refunding Act of June 27, 102, § 3, 32 Stat. 406. New York Code of Civil Procedure, 1899, § 2718, 2721 and 2722, considered. P. 551.

Proof that a suit by stockholders to obtain an accounting for promotion profit was pending against a firm of which a testator was a member, without showing the pleading, the issues, or character of the suit, the amount or merit of the claim, or the result of the litigation, held insufficient to establish that legacies in funds in the hands of his executors were not vested within the meaning of the Refunding Act of June 27, 1302, supra. P. 552.

53 Ct.Clms. 640 affirmed.

The case is stated in the opinion.