# Wilson v. Commissioner

> United States Tax Court · November 30, 1943 · 2 T.C. 1059

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4476217

## Case

- **Full name:** Estate of Henry Wilson, Francis A. Wilson, Beneficiary, Transferee and Constructive Executor Mary H. Wilson, Beneficiary, Transferee and Constructive Executrix and Winifred T. Wilson, Beneficiary, Transferee and Constructive v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- **Court:** United States Tax Court
- **Decided:** November 30, 1943
- **Citations:** 2 T.C. 1059; 1943 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 20
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mellott
- **Judges:** Harron, Opper, Smith, Herein, Arnold, Sternhagen, Only, Leech, Mellott, Turner, Fossan, Agree, Murdock
- **Cited by:** 26 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/4476217

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that if taxpayers could distinguish between probate and nonprobate property to defeat the estate tax, “the law would soon be a nullity”

## Opinion text

Mellott, /., concurring: Implicit in the language of the majority are two theories with which I do not agree: (1) That the filing of a return by the Commissioner under section 3176 R. S. may start the running of the statute of limitations; and (2) that the Commissioner may combine in one notice of deficiency and that we may hear and decide in one proceeding the joint, primary and representative liability of the executors and the several, secondary and personal liabilities of the same individuals as transferees. As to the first, we have already announced in this case 1 that the statute of limitations begins to run only if a return, which is not false or fraudulent, is filed by the executor. If extant decisions of this tribunal stand for any other view, then I think they should be overruled. As to the second, orderly procedure requires that the Commissioner elect whether he will determine a liability against the estate, which may be overturned only if the petitioners sustain their burden of proof, or proceed against the transferees in the manner contemplated by the statute (sec. 316, Revenue Act of 1926), assuming the attendant burden of proof. For a fuller discussion of the principles which the instant proceedings ignore or discard see Edward Michael, 22 B. T. A. 639; affd., 75 Fed. (2d) 966; certiorari denied, 296 U. S. 579 ; Milk Bottle Exchange, lnc., 43 B. T. A. 33; Paul, Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, § 13.47 and 13.48; Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, ch. 53.
Murdock, Van Fossan, and HarRon, JJ., agree with the above. Leech, J., concurs with the second point herein. See memorandum of Judge Van Fossan accompanying orders overruling petitioners* motion for judgment on the pleadings.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4476217. Public record. Not legal advice.