# Estate of Clack v. Commissioner

> United States Tax Court · February 29, 1996 · 106 T.C. 131

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4472734

## Case

- **Full name:** ESTATE OF WILLIS EDWARD CLACK, MARSHALL & ILSLEY TRUST COMPANY, CO-PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, AND RICHARD E. CLACK, CO-PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, Petitoner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
- **Court:** United States Tax Court
- **Decided:** February 29, 1996
- **Citations:** 106 T.C. 131; 106 T.C. No. 6; 1996 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 6
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Chabot
- **Judges:** WELLS,HAMBLEN,JACOBS,WRIGHT,RUWE,COLVIN,LARO,FOLEY,VASQUEZ,CHABOT,SWIFT,GERBER,JACOBS,PARR,COLVIN,FOLEY,VASQUEZ,BEGHE,COHEN,HALPERN
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4472734

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding it was unnecessary to decide the question of proper appellate venue for a federal estate tax case
- concluding that appellate venue depends on residence of executor of estate
- concluding that appellate venue depends on domicile of decedent

## Opinion text

Chabot, J., concurring in the result: I do not agree with the majority’s determination to overrule this Court’s opinions in Estate of Robertson v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 678 (1992), revd. 15 F.3d 779 (8th Cir. 1994); Estate of Clayton v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 327 (1991), revd. 976 F.2d 1486 (5th Cir. 1992); and Estate of Spencer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-579 , revd. 43 F.3d 226 (6th Cir. 1995). See generally Part I (qtip Issue) of Judge Parker’s dissent, and Judge Halpern’s dissent.
However, for the reasons set forth in Judge Gerber’s concurrence, I would hold that venue for an appeal would be in the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Under the Golsen rule, we would be bound to follow the interpretation of that Court of Appeals. See Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742 (1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971). Because the Golsen rule leads to the same result that thé majority reach in the instant case, I concur in the result.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4472734. Public record. Not legal advice.