Davies v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
40 T.C. 525 (1963)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
British citizen Geoffrey Davies (plaintiff) lived in Hawaii on a large property known as Craigside. The property was owned by Geoffrey’s father, T. Clive Davies. Clive wished to convey Craigside to Geoffrey. Craigside had an agreed-upon fair market value of $88,500. Clive and Geoffrey agreed that Clive would sell Craigside to Geoffrey for $74,500, plus a down payment of £5,000, and that the sale would be secured by a mortgage. Geoffrey expressed doubts about his ability to pay, and the two agreed that Clive would deposit £5,000 into Geoffrey’s account in England so that Geoffrey could cover the down payment. A deed and mortgage were executed, and the outstanding balance was noted as being £26,500. Over the next few months, despite there being no formal plan to make Craigside an unofficial gift, Clive made a series of deposits (most in the amount of £5,000) into Geoffrey’s account in England, each deposit large enough for Geoffrey to cover the monthly mortgage payment. The £26,500 was fully paid off in this manner, and the mortgage was released. Following Clive’s death, the transaction was included in the British estate tax return as a £26,000 gift. However, the United States Internal Revenue Service commissioner (defendant) assessed a gift-tax deficiency, reasoning that Clive had conveyed to Geoffrey a gift worth $88,500, which was taxable in the United States due to the location of the property. Geoffrey challenged this assessment in the United States Tax Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Opper, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.