Determination of the criterion of "value" for the purposes of
the gift tax under the Revenue Act of 1932 is a question of law,
and a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals that, in the case of
single premium policies of life insurance, irrevocably assigned as
gifts shortly after issuance, the value of the gifts was the cash
surrender value of the policies, was properly reversed by the
Circuit Court of Appeals as "not in accordance with law."
Guggenheim v. Rasquin, ante, p.
312 U. S. 254. P.
312 U. S. 260.
115 F.2d 209 affirmed.
Certiorari, 311 U.S. 640, to review the reversal of a decision
of the Board of Tax Appeals setting aside a determination of a
deficiency in a gift tax.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is the same as that in
Guggenheim v.
Rasquin, ante, p.
312 U. S. 254.
Petitioner, in November and December, 1935, purchased single
premium policies of insurance on her own life, and, late in
December, 1935, irrevocably assigned them as gifts. The
Commissioner determined a deficiency, claiming that the value of
the policies for gift tax purposes was the cost of duplicating them
at the dates of the gifts, not the cash surrender
Page 312 U. S. 260
value as reported by petitioner. The Board of Tax Appeals held
that the value of the gifts was their cash surrender value. The
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. 115 F.2d 209. That judgment must
be affirmed on the authority of
Guggenheim v. Rasquin,
supra, unless, as claimed by petitioner, the court below was
precluded from substituting its judgment of value for that of the
Board.
Helvering v. Rankin, 295 U.
S. 123,
295 U. S. 131.
But the question of what criterion should be employed for
determining the "value" of the gifts is a question of law.
See
Lucas v. Alexander, 279 U. S. 573.
Accordingly, the Circuit Court of Appeals was justified in
reversing the decision of the Board as "not in accordance with
law." Int.Rev.Code 1939, ยง 1141(c)(1), 53 Stat. 164.
Affirmed.
