we "Tne cuote Board intent from the aseribed to make decisions to the taxpayer a gift of the was doubtless right but make a gift but a sale, a motive stock, what The and © In this the Board the taxpayer did was not cuestion then becomes whether a sale can be transformed into a gift because of the motive, intent or purpose of the vendor or denor,. The finding is warranted that the purpose of the parties to the transaction was that the trust should acquire the ownership of the stoek without cost to it. This is essentially a gift, The finding is likewise justified that the wotive for making the transaction a sale instead of a gift was to enable the taxpayer to claim & loss on the sale, Do these purposes anc motives affect the thing done? 4n Analogue is the sale of stock by what are known as wash sales, Tax evasion by this device was halted but it required a change in the law to secemplish this, Here the taxpayer had the legal right to sell or give as he chose, He chose to sell, The sale is not changed from a gale to She a gift vendor gave fact to the that vendee the money with which Bowen, 85 Fed, 926, to make the See purchase, also * v. (CCA 4), White Motor & Fed, case in which the Co, Supp. 635, certiorari a v. denied taxpaver United States, 290 6. U, claimed a that the sales livered the goods for sale, were the Commissioner contended that the delivery the taxpayer to sale, The were lower diary. its by subsidiary, subsidiary contention the its time arose the goods 672, refwmd on the to it de- which taxable the were sales, The the goods by the taxable of constituted because 2d (Court of Claims), ground at the = Helvering is by rates sold by ef the the subsi- tax to