Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

133 F.2d 905

Docket No. 10460.

Villere v. Commissioner

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Feb. 16, 1943.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1943-02-16

2 counsel of record

Relies on Lucas v. Earl · Burnet v. Leininger · Saenger v. Commissioner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1943-02-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 2012

5 federal appellate ·

6019431950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Edwin H. Grace, of New Orleans, La., for petitioner.

¶2Irving I. Axelrad and Sewall Key, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. P. Wench el, Chief Counsel, and John T. Rogers, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

¶3Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Two brothers orally agreed that the salary and other earnings of each should be pooled and each should have half. During the tax years one, the taxpayer here, earned a considerable salary as an officer of a corporation, a large share of whose capital stock stood in his name. There were also dividends received by him on this stock. The other brother earned but little. They made as a partnership an information income tax return, and the taxpayer returned for taxation only half of his salary and dividends. The Commissioner, sustained by the Board of Tax Appeals, held the whole of them taxable to taxpayer. We agree. The contract to share personal earnings is not a true partnership, but an anticipatory assignment of income which when it accrues belongs to him who earned it; and it should be taxed accordingly. Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 50 S.Ct. 241, 74 L.Ed. 731; Burnet v. Leininger, 285 U.S. 136, 52 S.Ct. 345, 76 L.Ed. 665; Saenger v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 69 F.2d 631.

¶6The dividends prima facie belonged to him in whose name the stock stood. They were paid to him. It does not clearly appear what he did with them. The evidence is not plain enough that taxpayer did not really own the stock for us to overturn the fact finding of the Board.

¶7Affirmed.

/133/f2d/905 · .json · Public domain