Ross v. United States
Decision Date | 02 July 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 21252.,21252. |
Citation | 348 F.2d 577 |
Parties | Nell K. ROSS, Individually and James G. Harris and Elizabeth Ross Harris, Independent Executor of the Estate of James H. Ross, Deceased, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Leonard H. Childs, Henry L. Scott, Houston, Trotter, Childs, Fortenbach & McClure, Houston, Tex., of counsel, Carl W. Schumacher, Jr., Houston, Tex., for appellants.
Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Meyer Rothwacks, Alec A. Pandaleon, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., Woodrow Seals, U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Before WISDOM and GEWIN, Circuit Judges, and NOEL, District Judge.
The question this gift tax exclusion case presents is whether a gift in trust to a minor, under a trust agreement authorizing the trustee to exercise all the powers of a guardian, must be "considered" a gift of a future interest for purposes of section 2503(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The district court granted a summary judgment in favor of the United States, dismissing the taxpayers' claim for a gift tax refund. 226 F.Supp. 333. We reverse.
In 1956 each taxpayer gave each trust $3,350 in cash and property. In 1957 each taxpayer made similar gifts valued at $2,809.09. With respect to these gifts, each settlor claimed on his gift tax returns for 1956 and 1957 the $3,000 gift tax exclusion provided in section 2503(b) of the 1954 Code, 26 U.S.C. § 2503(b). The Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed the exclusions on the ground that the gifts to the trusts were gifts of future interests in property, disqualified from exclusion by the terms of section 2503(b). The taxpayers paid, under protest, $3,407.86 of taxes and interest, then sued in the United States District Court for recovery of the amount paid. Both parties moved for summary judgment on the stipulations. The district court granted the Government's motion and dismissed the complaint. Ross v. United States, S.D.Tex. 1963, 226 F.Supp. 333.
The trust instruments, in spirit and in letter, give the trustees, at the very least, all the powers of a guardian under Texas law. (In a sense, paragraph two of article V gives the trustees even greater power than a guardian would have, because the trustees may do without a court order whatever a guardian may do only with a court order.) As to this power, the district court reached the same conclusion as this Court, but held that Texas law so restricts the powers of a guardian over the corpus of his ward's estate that the gifts failed to meet the requirements of section 2503(c). We disagree.
It is true that under Texas law, a guardian may spend the corpus of his ward's estate (1) only for the maintenance and education of the ward,1 (2) only where the parents of the ward cannot provide adequate support,2 and, (3) except in cases of emergency,3 only after obtaining a court order.4 But these restrictions, in themselves, do not require that a gift through a Texas guardian be treated as a future interest for purposes of section 2503. An outright gift by a donor to the guardian of a minor is considered a gift of a present and not a future interest under section 2503(b); and limitations imposed by state law on the guardian's use of the property do not make the gift one of a future interest. Beatrice B. Briggs, 1960, 34 T.C. 1132. A gift in trust for a minor "as if the trustee herein were holding the property as guardian" for the donee has been held to be a gift of a present interest under section 2503(b) of the Code and is, therefore, entitled to the $3,000 exclusion from taxable gifts permitted by that section. That state laws pertaining to guardianships might pose barriers to the immediate enjoyment of a gift in trust will not cause the gift to be denied present-interest status. United States v. Baker, 4 Cir. 1956, 236 F.2d 317. See also Strekalovsky v. Delaney, D.Mass.1948, 78 F.Supp. 556; Cannon v. Robertson, W.D.N.C. 1951, 98 F.Supp. 331; 5 Mertens, Law of Federal Gift and Estate Taxation § 38.12 at 499; Lowndes & Kramer, Federal State and Gift Taxes § 33.12 at 728; 2 Casner, Estate Planning 255. The district court in Arizona has held that a gift to minors in trust qualified for the annual exclusion even though "resort to a court of equity might be necessary" in order for the trustee to invade the trust principal. DeConcini v. Wood, D.C.Ariz.1960, 60 — 1 U.S.T.C. par. 11,938, 5 A.F.T.R.2d 1874. In light of the authorities — such as they are — we read the words "may be expended" in section 2503(c) to mean "may be expended within the limitations imposed on guardians by state law".
Legislative history supports this reading of section 2503(c). This section, enacted in 1954, had no antecedent. It was enacted as a result of the courts' having given unexpectedly broad scope to the future interest exception to the annual exclusion. The future interest exception, adopted in 1932, was a legislative response to the specific administrative difficulty, in some cases, "of determining the number of eventual donees and the values of their respective gifts." H.Rep. No.708, 72d Cong., 1st Sess. 29 (1932); S.Rep.No.665, 72d Cong., 1st Sess. 41 (1932). The courts, perhaps because the language of the statute was so broad, extended the future interest concept beyond the limits to which Congress, later, was willing to go. Before the enactment of 2503(c) a gift in trust was held to create a future interest, for purposes of the annual exclusion, whenever the trustee had discretion to accumulate income or restrict distribution of corpus.5 As the Supreme Court said in Fondren v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1945, 324 U.S. 18, 20, 65 S.Ct. 499, 501, 89 L. Ed. 668: The status of gifts made through guardians was uncertain, though there were strong suggestions that such gifts might be considered present interest.6 Section 2503(c) "partially relaxed the `future interest' restriction contained in subsection (b), in the case of gifts to minors, by providing a specific type of gift for which the exclusion would be allowed." H.Rep.No.1337, 83rd Cong. 2d Sess. (3 U.S.C.Cong. & Adm.News (1954) pp. 4017, 4465). The Senate report is enlightening:
Section 2503(c) does not demand that the trust...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pettus v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...be expended’ in section 2503(c) mean ‘may be expended within the limitations imposed on guardians by state law.’ Ross v. United States, 348 F.2d 577, 579 (C.A. 5, 1965).9 Still another court has sustained a claim to the exclusion, reasoning that the trustee had at least as much discretion a......
-
Heidrich v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue , Docket Nos. 2409-69
...See Williams v. United States, 378 F.2d 693 (Ct. Cl. 1967); Duncan v. United States, 368 F.2d 98 (C.A. 5, 1966); Ross v. United States, 348 F.2d 577 (C.A. 5, 1965); Mueller v. United States, an unreported case (W.D.Mo. 1969, 23 A.F.T.R.2d 69-1864, 69-1 U.S.T.C.par. 12,592). A discretionary ......
-
Messing v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...the parents as guardians, in which event the transfers clearly constitute present interests under section 2503(b). Ross v. United States, 348 F.2d 577 (C.A. 5, 1965); United States v. Baker, 236 F.2d 317 (C.A. 4, 1956); Beatrice B. Briggs; 34 T.C. 1132 (1960); Rev. Rul. 59-78, 1959-1 C.B. 6......
-
Illinois Nat. Bank of Springfield v. US
...extended" language of § 2503(c) to mean "may be expended within the limitations imposed on guardians by state law." Ross v. United States 348 F.2d 577, 579 (5th Cir.1965). Provisions in trust instruments providing that trust funds may be expended "as may be necessary" or if the minor's need......
-
Table of cases
...v. Commissioner , 633 F2d 176 (10th Cir 1980), §24:34 Ross v. Commissioner , 652 F2d 1365 (9th Cir 1981), §24:34 Ross v. United States , 348 F2d 577, 65-2 USTC ¶12,337 (5th Cir 1965), §24:32 TABLE OF CASES Texas Estate Planning A-12 — S — Sales v. Passmore , 786 SW2d 35 (Tex App — El Paso 1......
-
Irrevocable Trusts - Non-Charitable Beneficiaries
...have purported to give away.” [ Upjohn v. U.S. , 30 AFTER 2d 72-5918, 72-2 USTC ¶12,888 (WD Mich 1972); see also Ross v. United States , 348 F2d 577, 65-2 USTC ¶12,337 (5th Cir 1965) (trust met requirements of 2503(c)(1) where trustee was authorized to exercise all the powers given to a gua......
-
A comparative proposal to reform the United States gift tax annual exclusion.
...the trustee to deal with the trust property as though he were the guardian of the minor's person and estate. See Ross v. United States, 348 F.2d 577 (5th Mr. (354.) Tress. Reg. [sections] 25.2503-4(b)(2) (1996). (355.) Rev. Rul. 74-43, 1974-1 C.B. 285. (356.) Federal Estate and Gift Taxes E......