Case Name: Luella Hoyt Slayton, Petitionee, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent; Virginia S. Straw, Hovey E. Slayton, Jr., Edward F. Messinger, Executors of the Estate of Hovey E. Slayton, Deceased, Petitioners, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Court: United States Board of Tax Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1934-01-26
Citations: 29 B.T.A. 931
Docket Number: Docket Nos. 57267, 57268
Parties: Luella Hoyt Slayton, Petitionee, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. Virginia S. Straw, Hovey E. Slayton, Jr., Edward F. Messinger, Executors of the Estate of Hovey E. Slayton, Deceased, Petitioners, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.
Judges: TkamMell agrees with this dissent.
Reporter: Reports of the United States Board of Tax Appeals
Volume: 29
Pages: 931–934

Head Matter:
Luella Hoyt Slayton, Petitionee, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. Virginia S. Straw, Hovey E. Slayton, Jr., Edward F. Messinger, Executors of the Estate of Hovey E. Slayton, Deceased, Petitioners, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.
Docket Nos. 57267, 57268.
Promulgated January 26, 1934.
Edward Clifford, Esq., and H. H. Shinnicle, Esq., for the petitioners.
Prew Savoy, Esq., for the respondent.

Opinion:
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.