American Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Commissioner

1974 T.C. Memo. 263, 33 T.C.M. 1158, 1974 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 56
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedOctober 3, 1974
DocketDocket Nos. 2854-72, 2855-72, 2901-72.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1974 T.C. Memo. 263 (American Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 1974 T.C. Memo. 263, 33 T.C.M. 1158, 1974 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 56 (tax 1974).

Opinion

AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO., ET AL., 1 Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
American Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Commissioner
Docket Nos. 2854-72, 2855-72, 2901-72.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1974-263; 1974 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 56; 33 T.C.M. (CCH) 1158; T.C.M. (RIA) 740263;
October 3, 1974, Filed.

*56 Held, the value of the assets in a trust established in 1955 in decedent's name and with decedent as the named grantor, under the terms of which decedent reserved unto herself the income for life, is taxable in decedent's estate despite petitioners' claim that the assets transferred to the trust really belonged to decedent's husband and that he was the real grantor of the trust.

Bernard M. Lubelchek, for the petitioners.
Seymour I. Sherman, for the respondent.

DRENNEN

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

DRENNEN, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in*57 the Federal estate tax due from the estate of Belle Shafton, decedent herein, in the amount of $1,244,603.80. The only issue is whether the value of the assets of a trust bearing decedent's name must be included in her gross estate.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly.

Petitioners American National Bank and Trust Co. of Chicago (hereinafter Bank) and Arthur Shafton are co-executors of the will and estate of Belle Shafton. They were also co-trustees of the Belle Shafton Trust, whose assets are here at issue, at the date of Belle Shafton's death. Petitioners Arthur Shafton and Carol Shafton Rock were transferees of the assets of the Belle Shafton Trust after decedent's death. At the time of filing of the petitions herein, petitioners were all residents of Chicago, Ill.

Belle Shafton was born March 6, 1881, and died June 14, 1968, a resident of the State of Illinois. On September 15, 1969, a Federal estate tax return was filed for her estate with the district director of internal revenue at Chicago, Ill.

The only assets owned directly by decedent at the date of her death (excluding for this purpose any consideration of the*58 Belle Shafton Trust) consisted of her interest in jointly-owned property having a total value at such date and at the optional valuation date of $38,193.81. All of such assets passed to the sole ownership of the other joint tenant on the date of the decedent's death.

Decedent and Leo Shafton (hereinafter called Leo) were married in about 1900. They continued to live as husband and wife until Leo's death on February 16, 1957. Decedent and Leo had two children, Arthur, who was born in 1905, and Kirvin, who was born in 1909 or 1910, and died in 1963.

Leo was an active and aggressive businessman. Between 1905 and 1929, he and his nephew, Jacob Shafton, established and operated a thriving wholesale produce business in Chicago.

In the 1920's, Jacob and Leo also invested in real estate; during that same time, Leo speculated in the stock market and made perhaps a half million dollars. Financial reverses, however, came with the 1929 crash. Leo fell heavily into debt and was obliged to borrow substantial sums from Jacob. The business ventures of Leo and Jacob became in danger of bankruptcy; to save them, several were incorporated separately. Two real estate investment properties, *59 a teaming company, and the produce company thus became individual corporations. Except in the case of the teaming company, each of the articles of incorporation listed the capital stock subscribers as Jacob W. Shafton, Leo Shafton, and Lester B. Shafton, an attorney and Jacob's son. The articles of the teaming company listed the capital stock subscribers as Jacob W. Shafton, Leo Shafton, and John Ritter. One of the real estate corporations obtained its property by two grant deeds (the second an amended version of the first) signed by four persons: Jacob Shafton, Rose Shafton, Leo Shafton, and Belle Shafton. On each deed, the handwriting of the signature of Belle Shafton appears to be different from that of Leo Shafton.

Leo retired from most business activities in the 1940's.

Leo tended to be exclusively in control of his family's financial affairs. Leo was proud of his investment ability and spoke of stocks as his own whether they were in his name or decedent's. Leo paid the household bills and did the household shopping. Beginning in 1955, he conducted stock transactions through a brokerage house using accounts in both his and decedent's names. Leo engaged in stock transactions*60 frequently, making daily calls to the brokerage house.Decedent had only trivial and incidental contact with the brokers. Leo alone dealt with the accounting firm which kept records of stock holdings and transactions, and prepared joint income tax returns, in Leo's and decedent's names. When Kirvin Shafton married, Leo considered removing from Kirvin's name stocks he had placed there, lest Kirvin's wife be less easy to dominate financially than Kirvin had been. At times, Leo signed decedent's name to documents needing her signature; other times decedent signed her own name.

In contrast to her husband, decedent was unfamiliar with financial affairs. Her role in her marriage was entirely that of housewife and mother. She was given nominal sums by her husband for spending money.

In 1953 or 1954, when Leo was about 80 years old and Belle was about 73 years old, Leo told his attorney he wanted to set his estate in order. He told his attorney he was concerned lest the amounts accumulated in his and decedent's names be dissipated in the event of his incompetency or death. Leo wanted to be in control of those assets while he was living and competent; thereafter he wanted Belle to*61 be adequately provided for by the income produced by such assets but he did not want her to have access to the assets themselves.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Burnet v. Commonwealth Improvement Co.
287 U.S. 415 (Supreme Court, 1932)
Morgan v. Commissioner
309 U.S. 78 (Supreme Court, 1940)
Aquilino v. United States
363 U.S. 509 (Supreme Court, 1960)
Shea v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
81 F.2d 937 (Ninth Circuit, 1936)
Pollard v. Pollard
147 N.E.2d 66 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1957)
Hanley v. Hanley
152 N.E.2d 879 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1958)
Scanlon v. Scanlon
127 N.E.2d 435 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1955)
Danielson v. Commissioner
44 T.C. 549 (U.S. Tax Court, 1965)
Schmitz v. Commissioner
51 T.C. 306 (U.S. Tax Court, 1968)
Adair v. Shallenberger
119 F.2d 1017 (Seventh Circuit, 1941)
Ullman v. Commissioner
264 F.2d 305 (Second Circuit, 1959)
Commissioner v. Danielson
378 F.2d 771 (Third Circuit, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1974 T.C. Memo. 263, 33 T.C.M. 1158, 1974 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-natl-bank-trust-co-v-commissioner-tax-1974.