Blair v. Commissioner
300 U.S. 5, 57 S. Ct. 330, 1937 U.S. LEXIS 59 (1937)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a beneficiary of a trust makes a valid, irrevocable assignment of all or part of their equitable interest in the trust, the income subsequently paid to the assignee is taxable to the assignee, not the assignor.
Facts:
- William Blair's will created a testamentary trust under Illinois law.
- The will stipulated that his son, Edward Tyler Blair, was to receive the net income from the trust for the duration of his life.
- In 1923, Blair executed legal instruments assigning to his children specified annual dollar amounts of the net income he was entitled to receive from the trust.
- In later years, Blair made similar assignments to his children for additional interests in the trust's income.
- The trustees of the trust accepted these assignments.
- Following the acceptance of the assignments, the trustees distributed the specified income directly to Blair's children.
Procedural Posture:
- For tax year 1923, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined that the assigned trust income was taxable to Edward Tyler Blair (petitioner).
- Blair appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals (a trial-level tax court), which found in his favor.
- The Commissioner appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the Board, holding the assignments were invalid under Illinois law.
- The trustees then filed suit in the Superior Court of Cook County, Illinois, to construe the will.
- The Appellate Court of Illinois, an intermediate appellate court, held that the trust was not a spendthrift trust and the assignments were valid.
- For tax years 1924-1926 and 1929, the Board of Tax Appeals, applying the Illinois court's decision, again ruled in favor of Blair.
- The Commissioner, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, with Blair as appellee.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals again reversed the Board, holding that even if the assignments were valid, the income was taxable to Blair until he received it.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trust beneficiary who makes a valid and irrevocable assignment of his life interest in the trust's income remain liable for federal income tax on the income paid to the assignees?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Hughes
No. A valid assignment of a life beneficiary's interest in a trust effectively transfers ownership of that interest, and therefore shifts the federal income tax liability on the assigned income from the assignor to the assignee. The court's reasoning proceeded in three steps. First, the validity of the assignments is a question of local (Illinois) law. An Illinois appellate court had already determined that the trust was not a spendthrift trust and that the assignments were valid, a decision binding on federal courts. Second, this case is distinguishable from precedents like Lucas v. Earl, which involved assignments of future earnings from personal services. Here, the subject of the assignment was not future earnings, but a present property interest. Third, a beneficiary's life interest in a trust is an equitable interest in the corpus of the property itself, which is alienable like any other property. By assigning portions of this interest, Blair transferred ownership of that portion of the income-producing property. Tax liability on income follows ownership; therefore, the assignees (the children), as the new owners of the beneficial interest, are the proper parties to be taxed on the income.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a crucial distinction in the assignment of income doctrine, often referred to as the 'fruit of the tree' doctrine. It separates the assignment of income earned from personal services (where the earner remains taxable) from the assignment of the underlying income-producing property itself. The Court established that a beneficiary's interest in a trust is considered property, not just a right to future income. Consequently, a valid transfer of this property interest also transfers the corresponding tax liability, providing a significant principle for tax and estate planning. This ruling clarifies that to shift tax liability, a taxpayer must give away the 'tree' (the property interest), not just the 'fruit' (the income).
