Hays' Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
39 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 213, 181 F.2d 169, 39 A.L.R. 2d 453 (1950)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A grantor's power as trustee to accumulate income or terminate a trust, when governed by a determinable external standard such as the 'best interest of the beneficiaries,' does not constitute a retained power to alter enjoyment of the property. Additionally, a grantor's remote, contingent liability for a mortgage on property transferred to a trust does not constitute a reservation of income requiring the property's inclusion in the gross estate.
Facts:
- A decedent created an irrevocable trust for her four children.
- She conveyed mortgaged farm land to the trust and appointed herself as the trustee.
- The decedent had originally incurred the mortgage debts secured by the property.
- The trust instrument directed the trustee to pay the mortgage debts out of trust income.
- The trust gave the trustee discretion to pay out net income or accumulate it if she deemed it in the 'best interest of the beneficiaries and of the trust estate'.
- The trust gave the trustee the power to terminate the trust prior to her death if she deemed it in the 'best interest of the beneficiaries and of the trust estate'.
- Upon termination, either by the trustee's decision or her death, the trust estate was to be distributed in equal shares to the beneficiaries or their heirs.
- The decedent filed a gift-tax return for the transfer, reporting the net value of the land after subtracting the mortgage debt.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined a deficiency in the estate tax of the decedent, Hays' Estate.
- The petitioner, Hays' Estate, challenged the Commissioner's determination in the Tax Court of the United States.
- The Tax Court sustained the Commissioner's determination, holding that the value of farm land transferred to a trust was includable in the decedent's gross estate.
- Hays' Estate filed a petition for review of the Tax Court's decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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 a grantor's transfer of mortgaged property to an irrevocable trust, where she acts as trustee with discretionary powers to distribute income, pay the mortgage, and terminate the trust for the beneficiaries' best interest, constitute a transfer with a retained interest or a revocable transfer, requiring the property's inclusion in her gross estate for estate tax purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Holmes, Circuit Judge
No. The property is not includable in the decedent's gross estate because the grantor did not retain a pecuniary benefit or the power to change the enjoyment of the trust property. First, the trust's assumption of the mortgage did not constitute a reservation of income for the decedent. When the trust was created and the trustee accepted her duties, the trust became primarily liable for the mortgage debt, and the decedent became merely a surety. Her potential liability was so remote and contingent that it did not amount to a retained pecuniary benefit. Second, the trustee's power to accumulate income rather than distribute it was not an arbitrary power to designate who should enjoy the property. This discretion was governed by a determinable external standard—the 'best interest of the beneficiaries and of the trust'—and was therefore subject to control by a court of equity. Third, the power to terminate the trust was not a power to alter or amend its enjoyment. The beneficiaries' equitable interests in the property were vested as a fee simple estate from the moment the trust was created. Terminating the trust early would only accelerate their possession of the legal title, not change who was entitled to the property.
Analysis:
This decision provides crucial guidance for estate planning, clarifying that a grantor can serve as a trustee of their own irrevocable trust without causing estate inclusion, provided their powers are constrained by a fiduciary duty and a determinable standard. It distinguishes between a grantor retaining personal, arbitrary control versus holding fiduciary powers exercisable only for the benefit of others. The case reinforces the principle that a remote, contingent liability, such as that of a surety, is not substantial enough to be considered a 'retained interest' for estate tax purposes. This holding offers a blueprint for structuring trusts that give trustees flexibility while successfully removing assets from the grantor's taxable estate.
