Jan Casimir Lewenhaupt v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

20 T.C. 151 (Tax Ct.1953)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Jan Casimir Lewenhaupt v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

United States Tax Court
20 T.C. 151 (Tax Ct.1953)

JC

Facts

Jan Casimir Eric Emil Lewenhaupt (Count Lewenhaupt) (plaintiff) was a Swedish count who was a nonresident alien at the time relevant to this case. Count Lewenhaupt had been involved in the import and export business before World War II. Count Lewenhaupt received property in America under a trust established by an American grandfather, Serranus Hastings. The trust existed until 1942, and on the trust’s termination, Clinton LaMontagne was the trustee who distributed trust property until 1945. In 1941, Count Lewenhaupt received American property under a trust from his mother’s will, which included four parcels of real property and securities in the United States. At that time, Count Lewenhaupt appointed LaMontagne, who was American, as Count Lewenhaupt’s agent to manage the property he would receive from the two trusts. Count Lewenhaupt gave LaMontagne a broad power of attorney, which LaMontagne used to transact business on Count Lewenhaupt’s behalf. LaMontagne never took significant action without consulting Count Lewenhaupt or Lewenhaupt’s father. During the calendar year of 1946, Count Lewenhaupt owned multiple lots in Modesto, California, two in San Francisco, California, and another in San Mateo, California. The property in Modesto, California, was sold in 1946 with a long-term capital gain of $152,555.87. The main concern was whether Count Lewenhaupt was engaged in trade or business in the United States during the 1946 tax year. The Internal Revenue Code provided that nonresident aliens engaged in a trade in the United States are taxable just the same as United States citizens in terms of income derived from sources within the United States. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the commissioner) (defendant) argued that Count Lewenhaupt was engaged in business in the United States, and Count Lewenhaupt disagreed. During the year in question, LaMontagne, as Count Lewenhaupt’s agent, had executed leases and rented the properties, collected rents, kept accounts for the properties, supervised repairs, paid taxes, insured the properties, and brought about the sale of the Modesto properties. The commissioner argued that Count Lewenhaupt had underpaid taxes for 1946 for $33,820.30. Count Lewenhaupt denied the underpayment and claimed he had overpaid $4,345.95.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Harron, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership