Metzger v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service
38 F.3d 118 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the 'relation-back' doctrine, a noncharitable gift made by check is considered complete for federal gift tax purposes on the date the check is deposited, provided the donor intended to make a gift, unconditionally delivered the check, and the check was presented for payment within a reasonable time and within the calendar year for which tax exclusion is sought.
Facts:
- On August 26, 1985, Albert F. Metzger executed a power of attorney authorizing his son, John Metzger, to make gifts on his behalf.
- Pursuant to this power, John Metzger wrote four checks on his father's bank account on December 14, 1985, each for $10,000.
- Two of these checks were payable to John Metzger and his wife.
- John and his wife deposited their two $10,000 checks into their joint bank account on December 31, 1985.
- Due to the New Year's holiday and bank processing times, the checks were not paid by Albert Metzger's bank until January 2, 1986.
- In 1986, Albert Metzger made additional gifts of $10,000 each to John and his wife, which were also paid in 1986.
- Albert Metzger died on May 29, 1987, more than a year after the checks in question were honored.
Procedural Posture:
- The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audited Albert Metzger's estate tax return and determined that checks delivered in 1985 but cleared in 1986 constituted gifts made in 1986.
- The IRS subsequently issued a notice of deficiency for $11,701 against Albert Metzger’s estate.
- The estate of Albert Metzger (the taxpayer) challenged the deficiency by filing a petition in the United States Tax Court.
- In the Tax Court, both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the legal issue of when the gifts were completed.
- The Tax Court granted summary judgment in favor of the taxpayer, applying the 'relation-back' doctrine to find the gifts were completed in 1985.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the appellant) appealed the Tax Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with the estate of Albert F. Metzger as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
For federal gift tax purposes, does the 'relation-back' doctrine apply to a noncharitable gift by check that is delivered and deposited in one calendar year but honored by the drawee bank in the subsequent calendar year?
Opinions:
Majority - Williams, Circuit Judge
Yes, in the limited circumstances of this case, the relation-back doctrine applies. A noncharitable gift by check deposited at the end of a calendar year relates back to the date of deposit, even if honored in the next year, when there is no uncertainty as to the donor's intent and no danger of a tax avoidance scheme. Although state law dictates that a gift by check is incomplete until paid, the court extends the relation-back doctrine, previously applied to charitable contributions, to this context. The court distinguished this case from precedents like McCarthy and Gagliardi, where the donor died before the checks cleared, creating a risk of tax avoidance. It also distinguished Dillingham, where an unreasonable delay in depositing the checks cast doubt on the unconditional nature of the delivery. Here, the checks were deposited promptly, the delay was due to normal banking procedures over a holiday, and the donor survived for well over a year, eliminating concerns of bad faith. The court adopted the Tax Court's three-part test, finding that where intent, delivery, and timely presentment are clear, the practical realities of commerce justify treating the gift as complete upon deposit.
Dissenting - Luttig, Circuit Judge
No, the relation-back doctrine should not apply because it directly contradicts the plain language of the controlling tax regulation. The regulation, 26 C.F.R. § 25.2511-2, unambiguously states that a gift is complete only when the donor has so parted with dominion and control as to have no power to change its disposition. Until a check is honored by the bank, the donor retains the power to stop payment and thus has not relinquished dominion and control. The relation-back doctrine is a judicially created fiction ('created out of whole cloth') used to circumvent this clear rule based on ad hoc policy considerations rather than law. This approach is suspect under Supreme Court precedent like Estate of Sanford, which requires a gift to be 'put beyond recall' to be considered complete. The court should abandon this invalid doctrine and apply the regulation as written, which would mean the gifts were not completed until 1986.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant, practical exception to the general rule that a gift by check is complete only upon payment by the drawee bank. By extending the 'relation-back' doctrine to noncharitable gifts, the court aligns federal gift tax law with the common-sense understanding that a gift is made when a check is delivered and promptly deposited. However, the court heavily emphasized the 'limited circumstances' of the case—specifically, the absence of any potential for tax avoidance—making the precedent's applicability uncertain in cases with more ambiguous facts, such as a longer delay in deposit or the donor's death shortly after issuance.
