Helvering v. Helmholz
| Decision Date | 11 November 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 14,14 |
| Citation | 56 S.Ct. 68,296 U.S. 93,80 L.Ed. 76 |
| Parties | HELVERING, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, v. HELMHOLZ |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The
Attorney General and Mr. David E. Hudson, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Messrs. James Quarles, of Washington, D.C., and Louis Quarles, of Milwaukee, Wis., for respondent.
This case, like No. 10, Helvering v. City Bank Farmers' Trust Co., 296 U.S. 85, 56 S.Ct. 70, 80 L.Ed. 62, arises under section 302(d) of the Revenue Act of 1926 (26 USCA § 1094(d). The respondent is administrator and sole beneficiary of the estate of his wife, Irene C. Helmholz. In 1918 she, her father and mother and her brothers and sisters joined in an indenture conveying to a trustee all of the shares of stock in the Patrick Cudahy Family Company. Her contribution was 999 shares, the dividends from which the trustee was to receive, and pay, less expenses, to Mrs. Helmholz for life, remainder to her appointee by will and remainder to her issue; and in event she or any other subscriber should die without issue the net dividends on the stock delivered to the trustee by such decedent were to be paid 'to the surviving subscribers or their issue living at the time of distribution proportionately by right of representation.'
The paragraph of the indenture relative to the termination of the trust is:
'Fifth: The term of the primary trust hereby created shall end (1) upon the death of the last surviving grandchild of Patrick and Anna M. Cudahy, they being then deceased, or (2) upon delivery to the said trustee of a written instrument signed by all of the then beneficiaries, other than testamentary appointees, declaring said trust term at an end, or (3) upon delivery to said trustee of a copy (certified by the president or secretary of the Patrick Cudahy Family Company and under its corporate seal) of a resolution adopted by unanimous vote of the board of directors of said corporation declaring said trust term at an end, whereupon and in either of said events the said trustee shall distribute the capital stock of said the Patrick Cudahy Family Company to the beneficiaries then entitled to receive the net dividends thereof other than testamentary appointees; excepting the shares to the dividends upon which such testamentary appointees are entitled, which shall be held by said trustee as hereinbefore provided.
'The term of the primary trust hereby created shall also terminate upon the dissolution of said the Patrick Cudahy Family Company in the manner and for any of the causes provided by law, whereupon the trustee shall distribute all the proceeds and assets by it received upon the liquidation of said corporation to the beneficiaries other than testamentary appointees then entitled to receive net dividends or income in the proportion in which they are severally entitled, excepting the proceeds and (or) assets of shares to the net dividends or income upon which testamentary appointees are entitled, which shall continue to be held in trust as hereinbefore provided.
'The term of the primary trust hereby created shall also terminate upon the extinction of issue of the said Patrick and Anna M. Cudahy, they being then deceased, whereupon the said trustee shall convey and transfer the stock of said the Patrick Cudahy Family Company to the Wisconsin Trust Company as trustee, to have and to hold the same upon the trusts and for the uses and purposes embraced in a certain resolution or declaration of trust adopted by the board of directors of the Wisconsin Trust Company May 24, 1915, establishing a certain community trust known as the Milwaukee Foundation for administration and distribution as in said trust declaration pre- scribed and defined, subject, however, to any existing valid testamentary appointments made by subscribers hereto as hereinbefore provided.'
Irene C. Helmholz left a will bequeathing all her property to respondent. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin held this a valid exercise of her power of appointment under the trust deed. First Wisconsin Trust Co. v. Helmholz, 198 Wis. 573, 225 N.W. 181. The petitioner determined that the value of the 999 shares should be included in her gross estate. The Board of Tax Appeals reversed this determination.1 The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to which an appeal was taken pursuant to stipulation for hearing by that court, affirmed the Board.2 We granted certiorari.
What is said in No. 10 shows that the transfer was complete when the trust was created in 1918. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Comptroller of the Treasury v. Glenn L. Martin Co.
...322 of the Sales Tax Act.2 Other transfers which were held to be absolute gifts are not material here.3 See also Helvering v. Helmholz, 296 U.S. 93, 56 S.Ct. 68, 80 L.Ed. 76, and White v. Poor, 296 U.S. 98, 56 S.Ct. 66, 80 L.Ed. ...
-
Walker v. United States, 10415.
...States, 296 U.S. 211, 219, 56 S.Ct. 180, 80 L.Ed. ___; White v. Poor, 296 U.S. 98, 56 S.Ct. 66, 80 L.Ed. ___; Helvering v. Helmholz, 296 U.S. 93, 56 S.Ct. 68, 80 L.Ed. ___; Helvering v. City Bank Farmers' Trust Co., 296 U.S. 85, 88, 56 S.Ct. 70, 80 L.Ed. ___; Helvering v. St. Louis Union Tr......
-
St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. State of Missouri
...49, 170 N.E. 489; Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U.S. 142; Untermyer v. Anderson, 276 U.S. 440; Nichols v. Coolidge, 274 U.S. 531; Helvering v. Helmholz, 296 U.S. 93. The repealing act, if interpreted as retrospective, would violate Section 15 of Article II of the Constitution of Missouri. Graham ......
-
Howard v. United States
...through the exercise of a power vested in the donor. Commissioner v. Allen, 3 Cir., 108 F.2d 961. The cases of Helvering v. Helmholz, 296 U.S. 93, 56 S.Ct. 68, 80 L.Ed. 76, and White v. Poor, 296 U.S. 98, 56 S.Ct. 66, 80 L.Ed. 80, are relied upon in support of the contention that Section 30......
-
Constitutional and Other Issues in the Application of the Nebraska Uniform Trust Code to Preexisting Trusts
...or create a revocable or irrevocable trust which may last beyond the ward's disability or life time. Report, supra note 3, at 124. 220. 296 U.S. 93 (1935). 221. The decision involved what is current Internal Revenue Code section 2038. See Treas. Reg. § 20.2038-1(a)(2). As a characterization......
-
When Will Modifications of a By-pass Trust Be Respected for Basis Step-up?
...829-31 (1962); Adams v. Cook, 15 Cal. 2d 352, 361 (1962); In re Van Deusen's Estate, 30 Cal. 2d 285, 292 (1947)42. Helvering v. Helmholz, 296 U.S. 93, 97 (1935).43. Cal. Prob. Code § 15405.44. Rust v. Rust, 176 F.2d 66, 67 (D.C. Cir. 1949).45. Eakle v. Ingram, 142 Cal. 15, 16 (1904); Fletch......
-
Analysis of and reflections on recent cases and rulings.
...Secs. 2036 and 2038 that required the cash-surrender values to be included in her gross estate. The Tax Court, however, citing Helmholz, 296 U.S. 93 (1935), and Estate of Tully, 528 F.2d 1401 (Ct. C1. 1976), determined that the language in both Secs. 2036 and 2038 refers to rights and power......
-
Gambling With the Irs: the Enforcement of Retroactive Tax Statutes in United States v. Carlton - Stewart Haskins
...(1927). 36. Id. at 147. 37. Id. 38. 276 U.S. 440 (1928). 39. Id. at 445. 40. Id. 41. Id. 42. Id. 43. Id. 44. See Helvering v. Helmholz, 296 U.S. 93 (1935); White v. Poor, 296 U.S. 98 (1935). 45. 305 U.S. 134 (1938). 46. Id. at 150-51. 47. Id. at 147. 48. Id. at 148. 49. 797 F.2d 481 (7th Ci......