Case Name: MYERS v. UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1931-06-01
Citations: 51 F.2d 145
Docket Number: No. K-308
Parties: MYERS v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 51
Pages: 145–152

Head Matter:
MYERS v. UNITED STATES.
No. K-308.
Court of Claims.
June 1, 1931.
This ease having been heard by the Court of Claims, the court, upon the stipulation entered into between the parties, makes the following special findings of fact:
1. The plaintiff at all times hereinafter mentioned was one of the executors, and is now the sole surviving executor, of the estate of Nathaniel Myers, deceased.
2. On or about March 12,1923, the plaintiff made to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue his income tax return as executor of the estate of Nathaniel Myers, deceased, for the taxable year ending December 31, 1922, on official form 1040.
3. On the basis of the said return for 1922, there were assessed against the plaintiff income taxes of $19,345.17, which assessment was subsequently reduced by $9,968.96, making a net assessment of $9,376.21.
4. The said assessment of $19,345.17 was paid by the plaintiff as follows:
“First installment, May 21, 1923, $4,836.-30, paid to the collector of internal revenue for the second district of New York;
“Second installment, June 8, 1923, $4,-836.29, paid to the collector of internal revenue for the third district of New York;
“Third installment, September 12, 1923, $4,836.29, paid to the collector of internal revenue for the third district of New York;
“Fourth installment, December 14, 1923, $4,836.29, paid to the collector of internal revenue for the third district of New York; and the collector or collectors of internal revenue to whom said payments were made by the plaintiff turned over and deposited into the Treasury of the United States of America as in the course of his or their official business said payments.”
5. On May 6, 1926, the plaintiff filed a claim for refund of the $9,968.96 referred to in finding 3 above, and said claim for refund was subsequently allowed and refund payments thereof were made as follows: First refund on or about April 22, 1928, $8,203.-88; second refund on or about December 1, 1928, $1,765.08.
6. On September 9, 1927, plaintiff filed with the collector of internal revenue for the Third district of New York an additional claim for refund of income taxes paid for 1922 of $10,327.23.
7. On October 29, 1928, plaintiff’s claim for refund referred to in finding 6 above was rejected in full by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
8. In determining the net assessment of $9,376.21, referred to in finding 3 above, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue computed the taxable profit or deductible loss from the sale in 1922 by the plaintiff (as executor) of certain securities held by the decedent, Nathaniel Myers, at the time of his death and included in his estate, on the basis of the value of said securities at the date of decedent’s death.
9. Haá the taxable profit or deductible loss from the sale of said securities been computed upon the cost basis of the said securities to the decedent, namely, their actual cost to the decedent or their March 1,1913, value, whichever was higher, the income of the plaintiff would have been $40,751.66 less than the amount which the Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined as the income of the plaintiff for 1922, and the tax assessable against the plaintiff would have been reduced by $9,149.25.
10. The cost basis of the securities referred to in findings 8 and 9 above, to the decedent, and their value at the date of his deaths were as follows:
11. If the plaintiff is correct in his claim that the proper basis to be used in computing the taxable profit or deductible loss from the sale of securities listed in finding 10 above is the cost basis of the said securities to the decedent, the plaintiff will be entitled to $9,-149.25, with interest, after allowing all just claims and set-offs.
McLaughlin, Knollenberg & Leisure, of New York City (Bernhard Knollenberg, of New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff.
Charles B. Rugg, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Charles R. Pollard and William T. Sabine, Jr., both of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for defendant.
Before BOOTH, Chief Justice, and GREEN, LITTLETON, WILLIAMS, and WHALEY, Judges.

Opinion:
WHALEY, Judge.
The facts as found in this ease are not disputed. In the ease of Elmhirst, Executrix, v. United States, 38 F.(2d) 915, 69 Ct. Cl. 295, the court in construing section 202 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1918, 40 Stat. 1057, 1060, held the gain or loss arising from the sale of securities by an executor is, for in come tax purposes, to be computed on tbe basis of their cost to decedent and not on the basis of their value at the date of decedent's death. The question in this ease is whether the value of decedent's securities at time of death is their cost within the meaning of section 202 (a) and (b), Revenue Act of 1921, 42 Stat. 2-27, 229. The two sections, as to the point in issue, in substance, are the same and the decision in the Elmhirst Case, supra, is controlling.
Judgment is for the plaintiff. It is so ordered.
BOOTH, Chief Justice, and WILLIAMS, Judge, concur.