Commissioner v. Hogle
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
165 F.2d 352 (1947)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
James Hogle (plaintiff) set up irrevocable trusts for his three minor children. The trusts were managed by an independent trustee and funded by the profits from a stock-trading account operated by Hogle. Hogle could choose whether to make trades. But if Hogle made trades and those trades made a profit, Hogle had no choice about where the profits went; the profits always went directly into the trusts. Hogle believed that these profits were being earned by the trusts and should be taxed at the trusts’ lower income-tax rate. However, the commissioner of Internal Revenue (commissioner) (defendant) determined that Hogle, not the trusts, had earned the trading profits and owed income taxes on those profits. Hogle petitioned for a new determination. Ultimately, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Hogle owed income taxes on the trading profits. The commissioner then determined that because Hogle had earned the profits, he must have temporarily owned the profits and, therefore, owed gift taxes on the transfer of those profits to the trusts. Hogle again petitioned for a new determination. The United States Tax Court held that Hogle did not owe any gift taxes on the trading profits transferred into the trusts. The commissioner appealed the ruling to the Tenth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Phillips, 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. 46,400 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.
