Estate of May v. Commissioner

1978 T.C. Memo. 20, 37 T.C.M. 137, 1978 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 497
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJanuary 18, 1978
DocketDocket No. 8451-75.
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 1978 T.C. Memo. 20 (Estate of May 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
Estate of May v. Commissioner, 1978 T.C. Memo. 20, 37 T.C.M. 137, 1978 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 497 (tax 1978).

Opinion

ESTATE OF LOUISE H. MAY, DECEASED, NORMAN T. MAY, Executor, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Estate of May v. Commissioner
Docket No. 8451-75.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1978-20; 1978 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 497; 37 T.C.M. (CCH) 137; T.C.M. (RIA) 780020;
January 18, 1978, Filed
Norman T. May (executor), for the petitioner.
Barry J. Laterman, for the respondent.

HALL

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HALL, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal estate tax in the amount of $10,194.99.

Other issues having been disposed of by agreement of the parties, the sole issue remaining for decision is whether jointly held property, transferred in trust and subject to a joint power of revocation, and in which the grantors reserve the income for their joint lives and the life of the survivor, is treated for estate tax purposes as jointly held property under section 2040, 1 or as either a transfer with a retained interest under section 2036 or a revocable transfer under section 2038.

All of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

Louise H. May ("decedent") resided in West Roxbury, Massachusetts, prior to her death. Norman T. May, executor of the estate, resided in Lexington, Massachusetts, at the time of the filing of this*499 petition.

Over a period of years, decedent's husband accumulated assets, primarily stocks, which decedent and her husband held as joint tenants with survivorship rights. Decedent was never employed and contributed nothing to the jointly owned property. On or about July 8, 1968, decedent and her husband, who were then 74 and 68 years of age, respectively, executed a joint declaration of trust by which they transferred to a trust the jointly owned property.

The trust agreement provided in part:

FIRST: So much of the net income and principal as the Trustee may determine from time to time or as the Donors may request in writing, shall be paid to or applied for the benefit of the Donors while both are living. Any such income not so paid or applied may be added to the principal of the Trust Fund or held as accumulated income for later disposition as hereinbefore provided.

SECOND: So much of the net income and principal as the Trustee may determine from time to time or as the surviving Donor may request in writing, shall be paid to or applied for the benefit of the surviving Donor after the death of the other Donor. Any such income not so paid or applied may be added to the principal*500 of the Trust Fund or held as accumulated income for later disposition as hereinbefore provided.

* * *

THIRTEENTH: This Trust may be amended or revoked by us at any time, by a writing delivered to the Trustee hereunder, effective four months after the day of delivery unless earlier revoked. An Amendment shall take effect only when it has also been signed by the Trustee.

Decedent died on November 15, 1972. Her husband survived her.

The value of the assets held in the trust was $380,062.92 on the alternate valuation date. On the Federal estate tax return filed on behalf of decedent's estate, no portion of the value of the trust corpus was included in decedent's gross estate. Respondent in his statutory notice determined that one-half of the value of the trust corpus was includible in decedent's gross estate under section 2036 or 2038.

The present controversy centers around the applicability of sections 2040, 2036 and 2038 to decedent's interest in the trust. The particular question is whether the transfer in trust of the jointly held stock destroyed decedent's joint property interest therein so as to preclude application of section 2040, while triggering application*501 of either section 2036 or 2038. If, as petitioner claims, the transfer in trust did not destroy decedent's joint interest in the stock, then under section 20402 no portion of the trust corpus is includible in decedent's gross estate since her husband supplied 100 percent of the consideration for the trust assets.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1978 T.C. Memo. 20, 37 T.C.M. 137, 1978 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-may-v-commissioner-tax-1978.