Estate of Rapelje v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
73 T.C. 82 (1979)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
In August 1969, Adrian Rapelje transferred title to his New York home to his two daughters, Helen Mulligan and Priscilla Wright (plaintiffs). In September, Mulligan’s niece moved into the house with her husband and stayed about five months while Rapelje went to Florida for the winter, as he had done annually for a decade. Rapelje looked at one Florida house for sale but did not house hunt extensively. After six months, Rapelje returned and resumed living alone in the New York house. In July 1970, a stroke left Rapelje partially paralyzed and unable to speak. A year later, Mulligan’s daughter moved in and stayed with Rapelje for several months. Otherwise, Rapelje lived alone in the house until his death in 1973. Meanwhile, his daughters did not try to sell or rent the house. One paid some utility bills, but Rapelje paid the property taxes and paid no rent. Mulligan claimed she had planned to move into the house by 1971 and made some weekend trips and repairs in preparation but abandoned that plan after Rapelje’s stroke. Rapelje’s will appointed his daughters coexecutrixes of his estate, and they had his final estate-tax return prepared. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the Commissioner) (defendant) assessed a tax deficiency, reasoning that the estate included the house because Rapelje had retained possession and enjoyment. The daughters petitioned on the estate’s behalf, arguing Rapelje had given them the house.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dawson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 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.