Outwin v. Commissioner
1981 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 184, 76 T.C. 153 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A transfer of property to a self-settled discretionary trust is not a completed gift for federal gift tax purposes if, under applicable state law, the grantor's creditors can reach the trust's assets to satisfy their claims, thereby allowing the grantor to retain dominion and control.
Facts:
- Edson S. Outwin and Mary M. Outwin, a married couple, sought to consolidate their family's investment assets.
- On December 24, 1969, Edson Outwin established four irrevocable discretionary trusts and Mary Outwin established one, transferring substantial personal assets into them.
- Each trust named the grantor (the person who created it) as the sole potential beneficiary during their lifetime.
- The trust agreements gave the trustees 'absolute and uncontrolled discretion' to distribute income or principal to the grantor.
- A key provision in each trust required that no distribution could be made to the grantor without the prior written consent of the grantor's spouse.
- The grantor's spouse was also named as a secondary beneficiary who would receive income after the grantor's death and held a special power of appointment over the remaining trust assets.
Procedural Posture:
- Edson S. Outwin and Mary M. Outwin each filed a gift tax return for the tax year 1969.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued statutory notices of gift tax deficiency to each petitioner for 1969, determining that the transfers to the trusts were taxable gifts.
- The Outwins, as petitioners, filed petitions in the United States Tax Court seeking a redetermination of the deficiencies asserted by the Commissioner.
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 transfer of property to an irrevocable discretionary trust, where the grantor is the sole lifetime beneficiary but any distribution requires the consent of the grantor's spouse who is also a remainder beneficiary, constitute a completed taxable gift?
Opinions:
Majority - Dawson, Judge
No. The transfers do not constitute completed gifts because the grantors failed to surrender dominion and control over the trust assets. The court's reasoning is grounded in Massachusetts law, which governs the trusts. Citing Ware v. Gulda, the court affirms the strong public policy in Massachusetts that a person cannot place property in a trust for their own benefit and keep it beyond the reach of their creditors. Under this principle, creditors of a settlor-beneficiary of a discretionary trust can reach the maximum amount the trustee could potentially pay to the settlor. Because the Outwins' creditors could reach the trust assets, the Outwins could effectively enjoy the economic benefit of the assets by incurring debt and relegating their creditors to the trusts for repayment. The court rejected the argument that the spousal veto power alters this result, reasoning that the marital relationship makes it unlikely a spouse would refuse consent, and allowing such a veto to shield assets would frustrate the state's public policy. Therefore, because creditors could access the funds, the Outwins never fully relinquished control, and the gifts were incomplete.
Analysis:
This case demonstrates the critical intersection of state trust law and federal gift tax law. It establishes that a spousal veto power over distributions from a self-settled trust is not sufficient to complete a gift if the underlying state law allows the grantor's creditors to access the trust assets. The decision reinforces the principle that 'dominion and control' for gift tax purposes is determined by the grantor's ability to access the economic benefits of the property, even indirectly through creditors. This holding serves as a significant precedent for estate planners, illustrating that certain trust provisions, while seemingly creating a barrier to the grantor's access, may be deemed ineffective against strong state public policies protecting creditors.
