United States v. Byrum
33 L. Ed. 2d 238, 408 U.S. 125, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 168 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The retention of the power to vote shares of stock in a closely held corporation, which have been irrevocably transferred to a trust, does not constitute the retention of 'enjoyment' of the property under § 2036(a)(1) or the 'right to designate' the persons who will enjoy the property or its income under § 2036(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Facts:
- In 1958, Milliken C. Byrum created an irrevocable trust for the benefit of his children.
- Byrum transferred shares of stock from three closely held corporations, in which he was a controlling shareholder, into the trust.
- The trust agreement designated an independent corporate entity, Huntington National Bank, as the sole trustee, vesting it with broad discretionary powers to manage the trust.
- Byrum reserved several specific rights in the trust instrument, including the right to vote the unlisted stock held by the trust, to veto the sale of any trust assets, and to remove the trustee and appoint another corporate trustee.
- As a result of retaining these voting rights, Byrum commanded a voting majority in each of the three corporations, controlling at least 71% of the stock.
- The trustee had 'absolute and sole discretion' to pay income and principal to the beneficiaries for their education, care, and maintenance.
- Each of the three corporations had a substantial number of minority stockholders who were unrelated to Byrum.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined that stock Byrum transferred to a trust was part of his gross estate and assessed an additional tax.
- The executrix of Byrum's estate paid the tax and filed a refund action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (a federal court of first instance).
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the executrix.
- The U.S. Government, as the defendant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, with one judge dissenting.
- The U.S. Government, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the judgment.
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 decedent's retention of the power to vote shares of stock in corporations he controlled, after irrevocably transferring those shares to a trust, constitute a retention of 'the possession or enjoyment of... the property' under § 2036(a)(1) or 'the right... to designate the persons who shall possess or enjoy the property or the income therefrom' under § 2036(a)(2), thereby requiring the inclusion of the stock's value in the decedent's gross estate?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Powell
No. The decedent's retention of voting power over the transferred stock does not require its inclusion in his gross estate under § 2036(a). The court reasoned that the term 'right' in § 2036(a)(2) connotes an ascertainable and legally enforceable power, not merely a de facto ability to influence. Byrum's power to affect dividends by voting for directors was not a retained 'right' to designate enjoyment because the directors had an independent fiduciary duty to all shareholders, not just to Byrum or the trust. These fiduciary obligations, enforceable by minority shareholders through derivative suits, along with various economic and business constraints, prevented Byrum from having an unconstrained power to regulate the flow of income to the trust. Similarly, under § 2036(a)(1), Byrum did not retain 'enjoyment' of the property, which implies a substantial present economic benefit from the transferred property itself. The potential to secure his own employment or influence corporate policy were not attributes of the transferred stock, but rather consequences of his position as a controlling shareholder, a position which was also constrained by fiduciary duties.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice White
Yes. The decedent retained both the 'enjoyment' of the property under § 2036(a)(1) and the 'right to designate' its enjoyment under § 2036(a)(2). The majority's distinction between a de facto 'power' and a legally enforceable 'right' is a formalistic reading of the statute that ignores the practical realities of a closely held corporation. Byrum's voting control allowed him to 'open or close the spigot' of income to the trust by influencing dividend policy, thereby shifting economic benefits between the life tenants and remaindermen. This constitutes a power to designate enjoyment. Furthermore, using his voting control to ensure his continued salaried employment represented a 'substantial present economic benefit,' satisfying the 'enjoyment' provision. The fiduciary constraints cited by the majority are largely theoretical and not a significant deterrent for a controlling shareholder in a closely held corporation.
Analysis:
This decision created a significant estate planning opportunity for owners of closely held corporations, allowing them to transfer wealth out of their taxable estates while retaining effective control of the business. The Court established a narrow, formalistic interpretation of the statutory term 'right,' requiring a legally enforceable power rather than a practical, de facto ability to control outcomes. The ruling's reliance on state-law fiduciary duties as a sufficient check on a controlling shareholder's power was a critical and controversial aspect of its reasoning. This case was so influential that Congress legislatively overruled its specific holding in 1976 with the 'anti-Byrum amendment,' now § 2036(b), which explicitly includes the value of transferred stock in a controlled corporation in the decedent's gross estate if the decedent retained voting rights.
