Court Opinion

ID: 9456269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:47:11.357812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:54.620817
License: Public Domain

AINSWORTH, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
I would hold that the District Court erred in denying the Government’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Government correctly employed Actuarial Table I of the Gift Tax Regulations (1954 Code), § 25.-2512-5(f), which is the applicable table for computing the value of private annu*897ities such as are involved here. On the other hand, taxpayer arrived at his value by using an average of the high and the low of seven or eight quotations received from commercial insurance companies which sell annuities. Taxpayer thereby failed as a matter of law in his burden of proving that the Commissioner’s use of Table I was arbitrary, unreasonable, and erroneous. Cf. Bowden v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 5 Cir., 1956, 234 F.2d 937, cert. denied, 352 U.S. 916, 77 S.Ct. 215, 1 L.Ed.2d 123 (1956); Dix v. C. I. R., 4 Cir., 1968, 392 F.2d 313; McMurtry v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1 Cir., 1953, 203 F.2d 659; Koshland’s Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 9 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 851, where each circuit court involved upheld the use of Table I for the valuation of private annuities and rejected valuations of commercial insurance companies, under the circumstances of those cases which are similar to those here.
I, therefore, dissent.