Trust Company of Georgia v. Ross
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
392 F.2d 694 (1967)
- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
This case was the appeal of a decision regarding a determination of income in respect of a decedent. Carling Dinkler Sr. owned a chain of hotels that he agreed in August 1960 to sell to Associated Hotels Corporation for nearly $11 million. Part of the purchase was the sale of over $3.5 million in stock. As the final details of the sale were being consummated, Dinkler died on January 30, 1961. The sale was completed on February 23, 1961. At trial, the court found the $3.5 million received by the estate to be income in respect of a decedent, ruling that because the activities and economic efforts of Dinkler had brought the sale to bear, the only remaining matters to be handled at the time of Dinkler’s death were purely ministerial. The executor of Dinkler’s estate, Trust Company of Georgia (plaintiff), appealed that ruling, arguing that the test used by the trial court was not correct in this matter. The government, via Aubrey Ross, District Director of Internal Revenue (defendant), argued in favor of the outcome. The central issue was whether, in addition to the economic activity being completed by the decedent, the underlying right to receive payment had to be complete and existent at the time of the decedent’s death.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
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.
