Mary Lenore Bullen v. State of Wisconsin
| Citation | 60 L.Ed. 830,240 U.S. 625,36 S.Ct. 473 |
| Decision Date | 10 April 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 262,262 |
| Parties | MARY LENORE BULLEN, George Bullen, Jr., Richard Nixon Bullen, William Graham Bullen, and John Nixon Bullen, Plffs. in Err., v. STATE OF WISCONSIN |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. John R. Montgomery, Louis E. Hart, Jasperson Smith, and Lloyd R. Steere for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 627-629 intentionally omitted] Mr. Walter Drew and Mr. Walter C. Owen, Attorney General of Wisconsin, for defendant in error.
This is a proceeding to fix the inheritance tax upon the estate of George Bullen, deceased, a resident of Wisconsin. The supreme court of the state affirmed a judgment for a tax upon a fund of nearly a million dollars which the heirs and next of kin say cannot be taxed in Wisconsin without violating the 14th Amendment and the contract clause of the Constitution of the United States. 143 Wis. 512, 139 Am. St. Rep. 1114, 128 N. W. 109.
The facts are simple. Bullen formery had lived in Chicago, and continued to do some business there after moving to Wisconsin, which he did in 1892. He kept in Chicago the bonds, stocks, and notes constituting the fund, and in 1902 conveyed them to the Northern Trust Company of that city upon certain trusts. In 1904, by virtue of powers reserved, he repossessed himself of the fund, but in 1907 he conveyed it to the company upon the former trusts again. The limitations, so far as material, were of relatively small sums to a sister and niece residing in Massachusetts, and, subject to those gifts of one third of the income to his widow for life and the rest of the income and the principal to his four sons. But the instrument contained the following clause: It also declared that no portion of principal or income should be paid under some of the leading clauses before Bullen's death, unless by his direction. In fact, be received the whole income during his life. The supreme court held that an inheritance tax was due in respect of the whole fund as upon a transfer intended to take effect in enjoyment after the donor's death.
The deeds of trust were not a merely simulated transaction. Bullen made a will shortly after the first transfer, which was of similar tenor, but which, it is found, 'has not been probated.' perhaps because the parties relied upon the deeds. The deeds transferred title and they had a purpose. Bullen at the time was suffering from locomotor ataxia, his wife also was in precarious health, and the chief instrument contemplated the possible disability of both. The ultimate limitations would operate unless revoked, which they were not. But Bullen, as has been seen, reserved an absolute power of control over all of his gifts, and exercised it during his life by a revocation (followed, to be sure, by a reconveyance upon the same terms), and by taking all the income of the fund. The words of Lord St. Leonards apply with full force to the present attempt to escape the Wisconsin inheritance tax: 'To take a distinction between a general power and a limitation in fee is to grasp at a shadow while the substance escapes.' Sugden, Powers, 8th ed. 396. See Gray, Perpetuities, §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blodgett v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York
... ... stock and the bonds were located in that state ... Wilbur ... F. Starr died July 23, 1929, ... 105, 106 ... Bullen v. Wisconsin (1916) 240 U.S. 625, 36 S.Ct ... 473, 60 ... ...
-
Blodgett v. Guar. Trust Co. of N.Y.
...of acquiring property by inheritance." Keeney v. New York, supra, page 534 of 222 U. S., 32 S. Ct. 105, 106. Bullen v. Wisconsin (1916) 240 U. S. 625, 36 S. Ct. 473, 60 L. Ed. 830, upheld subjection, by Wisconsin, to an inheritance tax on the fund under a trust, the circumstances of creatio......
-
Enochs v. State ex rel. Roberson
...N.W. 347; State v. Pabst, 121 N.W. 351; Estate of Bullen, 143 Wis. 512, 128 N.W. 109, affirmed by the supreme court of the United States, 240 U.S. 625. state adopted an inheritance tax law in 1903. The latest enactment was in 1921. There are no reported cases on constitutional grounds. The ......
-
Gardella v. Chandler
...403, 48 S.Ct. 553, 72 L.Ed. 927; Nash v. United States, 229 U.S. 373, 376, 33 S.Ct. 780, 57 L.Ed. 1232; Bullen v. State of Wisconsin, 240 U.S. 625, 630, 631, 36 S.Ct. 473, 60 L.Ed. 830. 7a American Medical Association v. United States, 317 U.S. 519, 63 S.Ct. 326, 87 L.Ed. 434; cf. the refer......
-
The Economic Substance Doctrine: A U.S. Anti-Abuse Rule
...intended those tax benefits. Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935), citing U.S. v. Isham, 17 Wall. 496, 506; Bullen v. Wisconsin, 240 U.S. 625, The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what other taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be d......
-
The Morality of Tax Avoidance
...E.R. 396 (H.C.). 44. Jones v. Garnett, [2007] U.K.H.L. 35; [2007] 1 W.L.R. 2030. 45. [1936] A.C. 1 (H.L.) (Eng.). 46. Bullen v. Wisconsin, 240 U.S. 625, 630 (1916). 47. Bullen, 240 U.S. at 630. 48. Id. 49. [1971] A.C. 739, [1971] 2 N.Z.L.R. 591 (P.C.); see supra Part II.F. 50. [2000] 19 N.Z......