Fillman v. United States
United States Court of Claims
355 F.2d 632 (1966)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Charles Wehrli, a resident and citizen of Switzerland, owned and operated a bank in Zurich from 1937 to his death in 1948. In 1939, fearing a German invasion, Wehrli caused the creation of two corporations in Argentina—Stella S.A. Argentine Commercial Industrial y Financiera (Stella) and San Juan Sociedad Anonima Commercial Financiera and Industrial (San Juan)—to hold his assets. Stella and San Juan opened accounts with the Guaranty Trust Company of New York (Guaranty Trust) to buy and sell securities on Wehrli’s behalf. Wehrli’s son was designated to provide instructions to Guaranty Trust, and in correspondence, the son made it clear that he and his father were the sole owners of all securities in the accounts. Upon Wehrli’s death, the assets held in the Guaranty Trust accounts—including various stocks in United States corporations and bonds issued by the government of Uruguay—were distributed to Wehrli’s heirs. After Wehrli’s son filed an estate tax return as a nonresident noncitizen, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (defendant) assessed a deficiency on the ground that the taxes paid failed to reflect Wehrli’s ownership of all assets contained in the Guaranty Trust accounts. Wehrli estate executor Henry Fillman (plaintiff) brought suit for a refund in the United States Court of Claims.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cowen, C.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.
