Brown v. United States
329 F.3d 664, 2003 WL 1989618 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the step transaction doctrine, a transfer of funds to a spouse for the express purpose of paying a joint gift tax liability is treated as a direct payment by the donor spouse for estate tax purposes. Additionally, when administration expenses are deducted and paid from the principal of a marital trust, the marital deduction must be reduced by the actual, not estimated, amount of expenses paid.
Facts:
- Willet Brown (age 87) and his wife Betty Brown (age 71) developed an estate plan for Willet's approximately $180 million estate, which was his separate property per a pre-nuptial agreement.
- As part of the plan, Willet gave Betty a $3,100,000 gift to fund a life insurance trust, incurring a joint gift tax liability of $1,415,732.
- To avoid having the gift tax payment included in his estate should he die within three years, Willet and his attorney devised a plan where Betty would formally pay the tax.
- Willet gave Betty checks totaling $1,415,732, the exact amount of the gift tax, with the specific understanding that she would use the funds to pay the tax liability.
- Betty deposited the checks into her personal account.
- The following day, Betty wrote checks from her personal account for the identical amount to the IRS, satisfying the joint gift tax liability.
- Willet Brown died in 1993, within three years of the gift tax payment.
- The estate incurred actual administration expenses of $3,592,024, which exceeded its original estimate of $1,880,000, and paid these expenses from the principal of the marital trust.
Procedural Posture:
- The Estate of Willet Brown filed a federal estate tax return in 1995 indicating zero tax liability.
- The IRS audited the return, determined that Willet had substantively paid the gift taxes, and assessed a tax deficiency.
- The Estate paid the deficiency and filed a claim for abatement and later a suit for refund in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment regarding the gift tax issue, the district court applied the step transaction doctrine and ruled in favor of the IRS.
- After a bench trial on the marital deduction issue, the district court held that the marital deduction must be reduced by the actual amount of administration expenses paid from the trust principal.
- The Estate appealed both adverse rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 the step transaction doctrine apply to treat a gift tax payment as being made by a decedent spouse when the decedent gave his surviving spouse the exact funds to pay their joint gift tax liability one day before she paid it, for the purpose of avoiding inclusion of the tax payment in his estate under § 2035(c)? And, must the marital deduction be reduced by the actual amount of administration expenses paid from the marital trust principal, rather than the lower, originally estimated amount?
Opinions:
Majority - Berzon, J.
Yes. The step transaction doctrine applies to treat the gift tax payment as being made by Willet Brown because Betty acted as a mere conduit for his funds. The court collapses formally distinct steps in an integrated transaction to assess tax liability based on the transaction's substance rather than its form. Here, the transfer of funds to Betty had no purpose or effect other than tax avoidance; she held the funds for only one day, and the transfer was part of a prearranged plan between related parties to shift the tax risk without shifting the economic burden. The purpose of § 2035(c) is to reverse the tax advantage of 'death-bed' transfers, and this requires that the tax risk follow the economic reality of whose assets were actually depleted. Furthermore, Yes, the marital deduction must be reduced by the actual amount of administration expenses paid. The plain language of § 2056(a) limits the marital deduction to property that 'passes' to the surviving spouse. Funds diverted from the marital trust principal to pay administration expenses do not pass to the spouse. Allowing the estate to deduct the actual administration expenses under § 2053(a)(2) while only reducing the marital deduction by a smaller, estimated amount would create an impermissible double deduction. This conclusion is supported by the uniform reasoning across all opinions in Commissioner v. Estate of Hubert that administration expenses paid from marital trust principal result in a dollar-for-dollar reduction of the marital deduction.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces the power of the substance-over-form and step transaction doctrines in tax law, particularly in scrutinizing intra-family estate planning techniques. It establishes that a lack of a legally binding obligation does not shield a transaction from this doctrine when a prearranged plan and a close relationship between the parties exist. The decision clarifies that the § 2035(c) 'gross-up' rule attaches to the estate that bears the economic burden of the tax payment, preventing taxpayers from artificially shifting this risk. On the second issue, the ruling provides a clear and important precedent on the symmetrical accounting required for the administration expense and marital deductions, preventing estates from gaining an unintended tax benefit by using different valuation figures for the same expenditure.
