Commissioner v. Estate of Copley
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
194 F.2d 364 (1952)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
In 1931, nine days before Ira and Chloe Copley got married, the couple entered a prenuptial contract. In this contract, Chloe gave up her marital rights to make any claim against Ira’s property after the two got married. In exchange, Ira agreed to pay Chloe $1 million. In 1932, Congress enacted the first gift tax, imposing a federal tax on any property that was not transferred for its value in money or the equivalent of money. In 1936, Ira transferred $500,000 worth of stock to Chloe as part of the promised $1 million. In 1944, Ira transferred another $500,000 worth of stock to complete the promised payment. When Ira died, the commissioner of Internal Revenue (commissioner) (defendant) determined that Ira’s estate (plaintiff) owed gift taxes on the two $500,000 stocks transfers. The commissioner argued that the transfers were taxable gifts because, under existing United States Supreme Court precedent, virtually all payments made pursuant to prenuptial agreements were considered gifts. Ira’s estate petitioned for a new determination. The estate argued that the transfer was not taxable because it occurred when the contract was created in 1931, before any gift tax existed. The commissioner responded that transfers had not actually occurred until 1936 and 1944, when the gift tax was effective. The United States Tax Court ruled that the transfers were not taxable gifts, and the commissioner appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Major, C.J.)
Dissent (Kerner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.