RASQUIN, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
v.
HUMPHREYS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In 1934, Humphreys created an irrevocable trust of personal property for his own life benefit with power to change the beneficiaries of remainder interests, then paid a gift tax on the transfer of those remainder interests. The Supreme Court held that the gift was incomplete and not subject to the gift tax under the Revenue Act of 1932 because the donor's retained power to designate new beneficiaries prevented the gift from becoming complete at the time of the trust's creation. The Court affirmed the lower courts' judgment that the tax was illegally collected, establishing that retained powers over beneficiary designations render a gift incomplete for federal gift tax purposes.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Stone delivered the opinion of the Court.
Decision in this case turns on the question, differing only in form from that this day decided in Sanford v. Helvering, ante, p. 39, whether, in case of an inter vivos transfer of property in trust, reserving to the donor power to designate new beneficiaries other than himself, the gift becomes complete at the time of the creation of the trust and subject to the gift tax imposed by the Revenue Act of 1932.
In December, 1934, respondent created a trust of personal property for his own benefit for life, with remainders over to specified classes of beneficiaries. By the •trust indenture he reserved to himself a power to change the beneficiaries of the trust and to prescribe the conditions under which the new beneficiaries should take an interest in the trust, but. without any power to increase his own beneficial interest in the trust property.
Respondent paid the gift tax assessed against him with respect to the transfer of the remainder interests upon creation of the trust, and brought the present suit in the district court to recover the tax as illegally collected. Judgment in his favor was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 101 F. 2d 1012, on the authority of Hesslein v. Hoey, 91 F. 2d 954. We granted certiorari, 307 U. S. 619, so that this case might be considered with the Sanford case.
The gift tax, § 319 et seq. of the 1924 Act, so far as now material, reappeared in § 501 et seq. of the 1932 Act, 47 Stat. 169. Other pertinent provisions of the earlier act were reenacted without change of present moment in §§ 501, 510, 801. The applicable estate tax provisions are § 302 (c) (d) of the 1926 Act, 44 Stat. 40, 71. Section 501 (c) of the 1932 Act added a new provision that transfers in trust, with power of revocation in the donor, should be taxed on relinquishment of the power. This was repealed by § 511 of the Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 680, because Burnet v. Guggenheim, 288 U. S. 280, had declared that such was the law without specific legislation. H. R. No. 704, 73rd Cong., 2d Sess., p. 40; Sen. Rep. No. 558, 73rd Cong., 2d Sess., p. 50.
For the reasons stated in our opinion in the Sanford case we conclude that the reserved power in the donor at the time of the creation of the trust rendered the gift incomplete and not subject to the gift tax. As pointed out in our opinion in the Sanford case the Treasury regulation under the 1932 Act, Art. III, Regulation 79 (1933 edition), in force when the trust was created, affords no basis for modification of our construction of the statute. Whatever validity the amended regulation of 1936 may have in its prospective operation, we think it is so plainly in conflict with the statute as to preclude its application retroactively so as to subject to tax such transfer as was made by the creation of the trust in 1934. Cf. Helvering v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 306 U. S. 110.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Butler took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Est. of Church, 335 U.S. 632 (U.S. 1949)…. [*690] Appendix B OPINIONS DURING THE PAST DECADE RESTING UPON THE RULE THAT THE REENACTMENT OP A STATUTE CARRIES GLOSS OP CONSTRUCTION PLACED UPON IT BY THIS COURT Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu, 307 U. S. 5, 14; Rasquin v. Humphreys, 308 U. S. 54; Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U. S. 469; Brooks v. Dewar, 313 U. S. 354; Helvering v. Griffiths, 318 U. S. 371; Walling v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co., 331 U. S. 17; Commissioner v. Munter, 331 U. S. 210; Francis v. Southern Pacific Co., 3…
-
Helvering v. Hutchings, 312 U.S. 393 (U.S. 1941)…rust or the power of its disposition, involves no taxable gift. It is only upon the surrender by the donor of the benefit or power reserved to himself that a taxable gift occurs, Estate of Sanford v. Commissioner, 308 U. S. 39; Rasquin v. Humphreys, 308 U. S. 54, and it would seem to follow that the beneficiary of the trust to whose benefit the surrender inures, whether made at the time the trust is created or later, is the “person” or “individual” to whom the gift is made. But for present purposes it is o…
-
Neuberger v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 311 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1940)…ull. 148. Under different circumstances great weight has been attached to administrative practice and Treasury rulings, but beyond question they cannot narrow the scope of a statute when Congress plainly has intended otherwise. Rasquin v. Humphreys, 308 U. S. 54; Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States, 288 U. S. 294. It is true, too, that in some cases the characteristics of partnerships as business units have been emphasized, Forres v. Commissioner, 25 B. T. A. 154; Wilson v. Commissioner, 17 B.…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Helvering v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 306 U.S. 110 (U.S. 1939)
- Burnet v. Guggenheim, 288 U.S. 280 (U.S. 1933)
- Hesslein v. Hoey, 91 F.2d 954 (2d Cir. 1937)
- Case v. Los Angeles Lumber Prods. Co., 307 U.S. 619 (U.S. 1939)
- Retail Food Clerks & Managers Union v. Union Premier Food Stores, Inc., 307 U.S. 619 (U.S. 1939)
- Humphreys v. Almon G. Rasquin, 101 F.2d 1012 (2d Cir. 1939)
- In re The J. T. Robertson Co., Inc. v. First Tr. & Deposit Co., 101 F.2d 1012 (2d Cir. 1939)