Merrill v. Fahs
65 S. Ct. 655, 1945 U.S. LEXIS 2756, 324 U.S. 308 (1945)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The relinquishment of marital rights in an antenuptial agreement does not constitute 'adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth' for the purposes of the federal gift tax.
Facts:
- Merrill, a man with assets exceeding $5 million, entered into an antenuptial agreement with Kinta Desmare, whose assets were negligible.
- The agreement was executed on March 7, 1939, the day before their marriage.
- Under the agreement, Merrill promised to establish an irrevocable trust of $300,000 for Desmare within 90 days of their marriage.
- Merrill also agreed to provide for two additional $300,000 trusts for Desmare and any surviving children in his will.
- In exchange, Desmare released all rights she might acquire as a wife or widow in Merrill's property, except for the right to maintenance and support.
- Under Florida law, a wife has an inchoate interest in all of her husband's property.
- The parties married, and Merrill fully carried out the agreement by creating the $300,000 inter vivos trust.
Procedural Posture:
- Merrill filed a gift tax return for 1939 reporting the trust's creation but claiming no tax was due.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined a gift tax deficiency of $99,000.
- Merrill paid the tax and filed a claim for a refund, which the Commissioner rejected.
- Merrill (petitioner) then sued Fahs, the Collector of Internal Revenue, in U.S. District Court (a federal trial court) seeking a refund.
- The District Court ruled in favor of Merrill.
- Fahs (appellant) appealed the decision to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's judgment, ruling in favor of Fahs.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
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 relinquishment of marital rights in an antenuptial agreement constitute 'adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth' under § 503 of the Revenue Act of 1932, thereby exempting a transfer made pursuant to the agreement from federal gift tax?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Frankfurter
No. The relinquishment of marital rights is not adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth, and a transfer made in exchange for such relinquishment is a taxable gift. The gift tax and the estate tax are to be construed in pari materia, meaning they should be interpreted together as they are supplementary to one another. The estate tax statute explicitly provides that a relinquishment of marital rights shall not be considered 'consideration in money or money's worth.' To prevent tax avoidance and maintain consistency, this interpretation must be applied to the identical phrase in the gift tax statute. Interpreting the same phrase differently in the two statutes would create a loophole for avoiding estate taxes through lifetime transfers structured as family settlements, thereby subverting congressional intent.
Dissenting - Justice Reed
Yes. Whether the transfer was for adequate and full consideration is a question of fact, and the trial court found that the value of the marital rights Desmare relinquished exceeded the value of the trust she received. The majority errs by importing a provision from the estate tax law into the gift tax law. In the Revenue Act of 1932, Congress explicitly excluded marital rights as consideration for the estate tax but conspicuously did not do so for the gift tax. This omission implies a deliberate legislative choice to treat them differently. The transaction was a bona fide, arm's-length business arrangement free from donative intent, and under the applicable Treasury Regulations, should be considered as made for adequate consideration.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing the doctrine of in pari materia construction between the federal gift and estate tax statutes. By reading the two laws together, the Court closed a major potential loophole that would have allowed wealthy individuals to transfer assets tax-free before death under the guise of an antenuptial agreement. The case solidifies the principle that transfers in exchange for marital rights are treated as gifts for tax purposes, reinforcing the IRS's ability to tax transfers that deplete a future taxable estate. This ruling harmonized the tax treatment of such transfers, ensuring that family property settlements could not easily be used as a tax avoidance device.
