# Slayton v. Commissioner > United States Board of Tax Appeals · January 26, 1934 · 29 B.T.A. 931 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4494633 ## Case - **Full name:** LUELLA HOYT SLAYTON, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE - **Court:** United States Board of Tax Appeals - **Decided:** January 26, 1934 - **Citations:** 29 B.T.A. 931; 1934 BTA LEXIS 1457 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Sternhagen - **Judges:** Sternhagen, Smith, Tkammell - **Cited by:** 1 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/4494633 ## Opinion text *933 OPINION. SteRnhagen: Considering, as we have, all the evidence, it is our opinion that despite the appearance of sale, there was lacking the intent of the decedent and his wife to make a sale- of these shares. First, we think the evidence, and more particularly the subsequent retransfer by the son, upon the first occasion when ownership became important, to the father solely for the purposes of the father, falls short of establishing a real transfer of ownership by petitioners for any purpose. While a sale for tax purposes is not to be disregarded because of its motive, on the other hand, a mere gesture without the vital intent to change ownership is not to be recognized as a sale merely because superficially it resembles one. Second, we think the evidence indicates a lack of intent to receive the consideration for a sale and hence that any transfer that might have occurred was a nondeductible gift. This we gather from the entire series of events and all the circumstances. Having been unable from all the evidence to find that a sale occurred, the basis for a deductible loss is lacking, and the respondent’s disallowance is sustained. Reviewed by the Board. Judgment will be entered for the respondent. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4494633. Public record. Not legal advice.