Burnet v. Wells
289 U.S. 670, 53 S. Ct. 761, 1933 U.S. LEXIS 197 (1933)
Rule of Law:
Congress may constitutionally tax the income of an irrevocable trust to the grantor when that income is applied to pay premiums on life insurance policies taken out by the grantor for the benefit of dependents, as such use constitutes a retained economic benefit equivalent to ownership.
Facts:
- On December 30, 1922, Frederick B. Wells created three irrevocable trusts (numbers 1, 2, and 3).
- On August 6, 1923, Frederick B. Wells created two additional irrevocable trusts (numbers 4 and 5).
- Trust number 1 assigned shares of stock to the Minneapolis Trust Company, with income to pay annual premiums on a $100,000 life insurance policy on Wells' life, with excess income to a daughter, and proceeds upon Wells' death to buy securities from his estate, held for the daughter's benefit.
- Trust number 2 similarly preserved a life insurance policy for one Lindstrom, a kinswoman.
- Trust number 3 maintained four life insurance policies for named beneficiaries, three relatives and one employee (who later became Wells' wife).
- Trust number 4 kept alive seven life insurance policies for his sons and daughter, and three accident policies for his own use.
- Trust number 5 kept alive nine life policies for his sons and daughter, and two accident policies for himself.
- Frederick B. Wells did not include any part of the income belonging to these trusts in his personal income tax returns for the years 1924, 1925, and 1926.
Procedural Posture:
- Upon an audit of Frederick B. Wells' income tax returns for 1924, 1925, and 1926, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed a deficiency, arguing that the trust income applied to insurance premiums should be included in Wells' taxable income.
- The Board of Tax Appeals upheld the Commissioner's assessment.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Board of Tax Appeals' decision regarding income applied to life insurance premiums payable to third parties, holding that Section 219(h) was unconstitutional as applied to such trusts, but affirmed as to accident insurance premiums payable to Wells himself. (Wells was the Appellee, Commissioner Burnet was the Appellant at this stage).
- The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the Circuit Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is Section 219(h) of the Revenue Acts of 1924 and 1926 constitutional, under the Fifth Amendment, as applied to a grantor of an irrevocable trust whose income is used to pay premiums on life insurance policies on the grantor's life, where the policies are payable to beneficiaries other than the grantor or his estate?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Cardozo
Yes, Section 219(h) of the Revenue Acts of 1924 and 1926 is constitutional because Congress may tax income to a grantor when the grantor retains substantial economic benefits or dominion over the trust property, even if formal title has been transferred. The Court reasoned that the statute's purpose was to prevent tax evasion by taxpayers who sought to retain the economic benefits of ownership while avoiding the burdens of taxation through the creation of trusts. While the trusts were irrevocable, Wells dedicated a portion of his income to preserving contracts (life insurance policies) that were made in his name for the support of his dependents. This constituted a substantial economic benefit to the grantor, akin to using income for a fixed charge in his family budget, and thus could be taxed to him without being arbitrary or tyrannical. The Court emphasized that taxation is concerned with the 'actual command over the property taxed' and the 'actual benefit for which the tax is paid,' rather than mere 'refinements of title.' It held that the grantor maintains a sufficient interest in the preservation of these insurance contracts, even if the proceeds go to others, making it reasonable for Congress to attribute the income used for premiums to him. This aligns with a broader legislative and judicial endeavor to align the legal concept of ownership with the economic realities of enjoyment.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Sutherland
No, Section 219(h) of the Revenue Acts of 1924 and 1926 is unconstitutional because Congress cannot tax the income of one person (the trustee/beneficiaries) as the income of another (the grantor) when the grantor has irrevocably relinquished all title and control over the trust property. Justice Sutherland, joined by Justices Van Devanter, McReynolds, and Butler, argued that upon creating the irrevocable trusts, Wells retained no 'vestige of title to, interest in, or control over' the transferred property. They asserted that this was an outright gift, and the income from such property, having been irrevocably dedicated to others, could not constitutionally be taxed as the settlor's income. The dissent emphasized that the material question is 'what has he done?' (created an irrevocable trust) not 'why has he done it?' (social duty, peace of mind). The distinction, according to the dissent, lies between income devoted to payments the settlor is bound to make (which could be taxable to them) and those they are free to make or not make. In the case of these irrevocable trusts, the settlor had no legal obligation to pay the premiums and no power to direct the income after the trust's creation; the power rested automatically with the trustee. Therefore, taxing this income to the grantor amounted to taxing the property of A as the property of B, which violates the Fifth Amendment.
Analysis:
This case significantly advanced the 'economic reality' doctrine in tax law, moving away from strict legalistic interpretations of ownership towards a focus on who actually benefits from or controls income. It solidified the principle that a grantor could be taxed on trust income if they retained 'incidents of ownership' or 'economic enjoyment,' even without formal title or power of revocation. This ruling was a precursor to the development of specific 'grantor trust' rules in the Internal Revenue Code and set an important precedent for future cases addressing tax avoidance schemes, emphasizing that substance over form would prevail in determining tax liability. It illustrates the Court's willingness to allow Congress broad power to define taxable income in ways that prevent tax evasion, provided the definition is not 'wholly arbitrary.'
