Helvering v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co.
56 S. Ct. 70, 1935 U.S. LEXIS 566, 296 U.S. 85 (1935)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under § 302(d) of the Revenue Act of 1926, the value of property transferred to a trust is included in the decedent's gross estate if the decedent retained the power to alter, amend, or revoke the trust in conjunction with any person, regardless of whether that person is a beneficiary with an adverse interest.
Facts:
- On February 21, 1930, Gertrude Feldman James created a trust, transferring securities to a trustee.
- The trust agreement provided that the income would be paid to James during her lifetime.
- After her death, the income was to be paid to her husband, Samuel James, if he survived her.
- At the termination of the trust, the corpus was to be delivered to her husband if he was alive.
- James reserved the right to modify, alter, or revoke the trust, but only with the written consent of the trustee and her husband.
- If her husband were dead, the consent of the trustee and the husband's brother was required.
- James died before the trust terminated, and her husband survived her.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Helvering) included the value of the trust corpus in Gertrude Feldman James's gross estate and determined a tax deficiency.
- The estate, represented by the trustee, challenged the deficiency at the Board of Tax Appeals (the trial-level tax court).
- The Board of Tax Appeals reversed the Commissioner's determination, holding that the trust value was not includible in the gross estate.
- The Commissioner, as petitioner, appealed this decision to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals in favor of the estate.
- The Commissioner petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 § 302(d) of the Revenue Act of 1926 require including a trust's corpus in a decedent's gross estate if the decedent's power to revoke the trust could only be exercised in conjunction with a beneficiary, and if so, does this application violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Roberts
Yes, § 302(d) requires the inclusion of the trust corpus in the gross estate, and this does not violate the Fifth Amendment. The statutory language 'in conjunction with any person' is unambiguous and must be interpreted literally to include all persons, including beneficiaries with adverse interests. The court rejected the argument that this provision should be read to align with the income tax provision (§ 219(g)) which specifies 'any person not a beneficiary,' stating that the difference in wording reflects a deliberate congressional choice. As a matter of due process, it is not arbitrary for Congress to treat a transfer as incomplete for estate tax purposes where the grantor retains such a joint power. This measure is a reasonable and appropriate means to prevent tax avoidance, as Congress could have believed that a family member, even a beneficiary, might be persuaded by the grantor to consent to a revocation.
Dissenting - Unspecified (noted in text)
No. Mr. Justice Van Devanter, Mr. Justice McReynolds, Mr. Justice Sutherland and Mr. Justice Butler expressed their opinion that the judgment of the lower court, which excluded the trust from the estate, should be affirmed. No reasoning for this position was provided.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a broad interpretation of the federal estate tax statute, closing a significant potential loophole for tax avoidance. By giving literal effect to the phrase 'any person,' the Court prevents grantors from retaining control over trust assets while excluding them from their taxable estate simply by requiring a beneficiary's consent for revocation. The ruling reinforces the principle that courts will defer to clear statutory language aimed at preventing tax evasion, as long as the legislative measure is reasonably related to that goal. This precedent significantly impacts estate planning, making it clear that joint powers of revocation held with family members or other beneficiaries do not remove the trust assets from the grantor's gross estate.
