DocketNumber: Docket No. 53695
Citation Numbers: 25 T.C. 22, 1955 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 78
Judges: Bruce
Filed Date: 10/17/1955
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/14/2024
*78
The decedent transferred property in trust in 1938 whereby he was to receive $ 100 per month for life and the balance of the income was distributable to him in the discretion of the trustee.
*22 Respondent determined a deficiency in the estate tax of the petitioner in the amount of $ 10,292.87. Petitioner acquiesced in certain adjustments and paid additional taxes thereon in the amount of $ 297.86. The issue for decision is whether the respondent correctly determined that the entire corpus of a trust created by the petitioner's decedent was includible in the gross estate under
FINDINGS OF FACT.
All of the facts were stipulated and are so found.
Petitioner's decedent died testate on March 7, 1951, a resident of Evansville, *80 Indiana. The National City Bank of Evansville, Indiana, was appointed administrator with will attached. The petitioner filed a timely estate tax return with the collector of internal revenue for the district of Indiana.
*23 On March 2, 1938, the decedent transferred to the National City Bank of Evansville, as trustee, certain personal property, consisting principally of stocks and bonds. The trust agreement provided in part as follows:
The said Trustee shall monthly pay to the Grantor during his lifetime, the sum of One hundred dollars ($ 100.00) per month, provided however that the Trustee may in his discretion and after consultation with Louis C. Uhl, pay a greater sum than One hundred dollars ($ 100.00) per month if it shall seem advisable and provided further, that said sum so paid shall not in any event exceed the amount of net income received from said property.
* * * *
This Trust shall be irrevocable by the Grantor and shall terminate at his death at which time the property remaining in the hands of the Trustee shall be divided into three equal parts and one part shall go to each Louis C. Uhl the nephew of grantor, Helen Uhl Farner a niece of the grantor and Jane Uhl, *81 a niece of grantor.
The trust agreement also provided for the disposition of each remainderman's share in the event he or she predeceased the decedent, but all three of the remaindermen survived the decedent.
The value of this trust estate as of March 7, 1951, was as follows:
Cash | $ 60.51 |
U. S. Bonds | 75,068.41 |
81 shares SIG & E 4.8% Pref | 8,788.50 |
20 shares Spink Arms Hotel | 300.00 |
$ 84,217.42 |
Net income received by the trust during the years 1943 to 1950, inclusive, was as follows:
Year | Net income |
1943 | $ 2,095.56 |
1944 | 2,174.80 |
1945 | 1,943.18 |
1946 | 1,927.20 |
1947 | $ 1,983.71 |
1948 | 1,987.26 |
1949 | 1,986.32 |
1950 | 2,000.74 |
From the above tabulated net income, distributions were made to the decedent as follows:
1943 | $ 1,200 |
1944 | 1,200 |
1945 | 1,200 |
1946 | 1,200 |
1947 | $ 1,200 |
1948 | 1,200 |
1949 | 820 |
1950 |
Additional payments from the trust were made for the benefit of decedent as follows:
Deaconess Hospital 1949 | $ 923.25 |
Dr. Shelby Wishart 1949 | 411.00 |
Nursing services and drugs 1949 | 96.55 |
Nursing Home 1950 | 1,349.00 |
Dr. Shelby Wishart 1950 | 228.35 |
Deaconess Hospital 1950 | 115.30 |
Nursing services and drugs | 160.95 |
Total | $ 3,284.40 |
*24 The*82 petitioner included in the gross estate for estate tax purposes, under schedule G, $ 45,481.61 out of the entire corpus of the trust estate. Respondent determined that the entire value of the trust estate as of March 7, 1951, or $ 84,217.42, was includible in the gross estate.
OPINION.
The issue presented is whether petitioner's decedent retained for his life "the right to the income from, the property," conveyed in trust in 1938 within the purview of
Where a person creates for his own benefit a trust for support or a discretionary trust, his transferee or creditors can reach the maximum amount which the trustee under the terms of the trust could pay to him or apply for his benefit.
See also
The trust in question was, of course, governed by the law of Indiana, and we have been unable to find and the parties have not cited any Indiana case directly in point. We assume, however, that the Indiana courts would follow the general rule. Some support for this assumption is found in the fact that Burns, Indiana Statutes, Annotated, sec. 33-409, provides:
All deeds of gift, conveyance, transfers or assignments, verbal or written, of goods or things in action, made in trust for the use of the person making the same, shall be void as against creditors, existing or subsequent, of such person.
The above statute was given effect in favor of a subsequent creditor in
As the decedent's creditors could have reached the income which was distributable to him in the trustee's discretion, the decedent could have obtained the enjoyment and economic benefit of such income by the simple expedient of borrowing money or otherwise becoming indebted, and then relegating the creditor to the trust income for reimbursement. This was held to constitute sufficient retention of dominion and control over the income of a trust to bar the imposition of a gift tax on property transferred in trust to the extent of the value of the life estate in
1.
The value of the gross estate of the decedent shall be determined by including the value at the time of his death of all property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, wherever situated, except real property situated outside of the United States --
* * * *
(c) Transfers in Contemplation of, or Taking Effect at, Death. -- (1) General rule. -- To the extent of any interest therein of which the decedent has at any time made a transfer (except in case of a bona fide sale for an adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth), by trust or otherwise -- * * * * (B) under which he has retained for his life or for any period not ascertainable without reference to his death or for any period which does not in fact end before his death (i) the possession or enjoyment of, or the right to the income from, the property, or (ii) the right, either alone or in conjunction with any person, to designate the persons who shall possess or enjoy the property or the income therefrom; * * *↩
2. The Commissioner's determination was made pursuant to
3. See