Pfaff v. CommissionerAnnotate this Case
312 U.S. 646 (1941)
U.S. Supreme Court
Pfaff v. Commissioner, 312 U.S. 646 (1941)
Pfaff v. Commissioner
Argued March 4, 5, 1941
Decided March 31, 1941
312 U.S. 646
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
113 F.2d 114 affirmed.
Certiorari, 311 U.S. 639, to review a judgment which affirmed a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals sustaining a deficiency assessment.
MR. JUSTICE REED delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the same question as Helvering v. Enright's Estate, ante, p. 312 U. S. 636. Petitioners are the executors of a deceased physician who during 1935 was a member of a medical partnership and entitled to forty percent of its profits. He died December 25, 1935, on which date there were outstanding about $69,000 of partnership accounts receivable for services rendered to patients during his lifetime. His death worked a dissolution of the partnership under § 62(4) of the New York Partnership Law. The decedent's interest in these accounts
came to over $27,000. Both he and the partnership were on a cash basis. Pursuant to section 42 of the Revenue Act of 1934, and article 42(1) of Treasury Regulations 86, the commissioner included the decedent's share of the accounts receivable in his 1935 income, though only at about one-fifth of face value. The Board of Tax Appeals sustained the commissioner's view of the statute, and also ruled that the valuation of the decedent's interest in the accounts at one-fifth of face value was amply supported. The Circuit Court of Appeals, without writing an opinion, affirmed the Board. 113 F.2d 114. Because of a conflict with the Third Circuit's decision, 112 F.2d 919, in the Enright case, supra, we granted certiorari, 311 U.S. 639.
There is no relevant difference between these facts and Helvering v. Enright's Estate. For the reasons stated in that opinion, it was proper to include in the decedent's 1935 income the fair value of his interest in the accounts.
Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.