The opinion of the court was delivered by: MCILVAINE
The Court finds the facts as stipulated by and between the respective parties to this action as follows:
1. Louise Veech (hereinafter called decedent) of Connellsville, Pennsylvania, died March 23, 1952, and letters testamentary were granted the plaintiff, Katharine A. Howell, by the Register of Wills, Fayette County, Pennsylvania, on March 27, 1952.
2. The plaintiff timely filed with the defendant, A. J. Dudley, District Director of Internal Revenue for the 23rd District of Pennsylvania, the Decedent's Federal Estate Tax Return; reported a net estate for additional tax in the amount $ 169,017.80; and timely paid Federal estate taxes in the amount shown on the return of $ 39,508.98.
3. The plaintiff deducted $ 4,000 as a charitable bequest to Yale University under terms of a will dated January 27, 1949, which will, although it was not probated, was introduced at the audit of the decedent's estate and used to determine the distributive shares of the beneficiary. The said claimed bequest to Yale, less the Pennsylvania inheritance tax thereon in the amount of $ 600, was paid by the plaintiff to Yale University on June 1, 1953.
4. The defendant, through his agent, inter alia, determined that the aforesaid deduction of $ 4,000 was not allowable. As a result of such determination and of certain other adjustments not material to this case, plaintiff paid to the defendant, on June 14, 1955, an additional estate tax of $ 1,971.49 and paid to the defendant, on September 20, 1955, assessed interest of $ 233.85.
5. On November 17, 1955, plaintiff timely filed a Claim for Refund for $ 1,104 of the aforesaid amounts paid as additional estate tax and assessed interest, claiming the $ 1,104 to be due her because of the disallowance of the deduction of the aforesaid $ 4,000. On November 7, 1956, the plaintiff timely filed an Amended Claim for Refund asserting as additional grounds for refund of Federal estate taxes the fact that they shall incur additional legal fees and expenses in prosecuting her Claim for Refund before the Internal Revenue Service and the United States Courts. By letter dated November 13, 1956, from R. E. Karcher, Associate Chief, Appellate Division, Philadelphia Region, Bureau of Internal Revenue, United States Treasury Department, plaintiff was advised that the amended Claim for Refund would be disallowed in full and that a statutory notice of disallowance would be mailed at a later date. The parties hereto agree that when the Internal Revenue Service mails to the plaintiff a statutory notice of disallowance of the amended Claim for Refund, the Court will be furnished with a supplemental stipulation of facts so stating.
6. It is stipulated that defendant's Exhibit 'A' is a true and correct copy of the First and Final Action, Petition for Distribution, transcript of the testimony, and of the Opinion and Decree in the Orphans' Court of Fayette County, Pennsylvania, in the Estate of Louise Veech, deceased. It is further stipulated that defendant's Exhibit 'B' is a true and correct copy of the last will of Louise Veech, deceased, dated March 18, 1952.
7. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, by registered letter mailed on February 21, 1957, issued a formal statutory notice of disallowance advising the plaintiff that her amended claim for refund of Federal estate taxes dated November 7, 1956, was disallowed in full.
8. The plaintiff has incurred expenses in prosecution of her claims for refund dated November 17, 1955, and November 7, 1956, through the Treasury Department and maintaining this action before the Court as follows:
Attorneys fees $ 600.00
Filing fees U.S. District Court 18.40
Pre-trial transcript 5.20
Total $ 623.60
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw ...