Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
The Fort Worth National Bank, Independent Executor of Theestate of Mary Lard, Deceased, Plaintiff-appellee, v. United States of America, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 552 F.2d 158
May 13, 1977
Frank D. McCown, U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael J. Roach, Atty., Gilbert F. Andrews, Act. Chief, Appellate Sec., Michael L. Paup, William S. Estabrook, Attys., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Tax Div., Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellant.
Richard Lee Brown, Terry Gardner, Jay S. Garrett, Fort Worth, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GODBOLD, TJOFLAT and HILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal by the Government of a decision of the district court granting a refund to the estate of Mary Lard. The main issue in the lower court was whether the value of a remainder interest in a wasting asset given to charity was sufficiently definite to be deductible. The district court held that it was and entered judgment for the trustee. Its thorough opinion is set out at 396 F.Supp. 337 (N.D.Tex.1975).
On appeal, the Government does not challenge the finding of the district court that the value of the remainder interest was sufficiently definite. Instead, it claims that the district court in making its valuation failed to take into account the fact that the charity was not to receive a possessory interest for almost five years (according to actuarial tables). Our examination reveals, however, that the district court correctly calculated the value of the charitable remainder interest. See generally 26 C.F.R. §§ 20.2031-7 & 20.2031-10 (1976).
AFFIRMED.