Garst Trust v. Commissioner
This text of 1987 T.C. Memo. 177 (Garst Trust 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.
Opinion
*172 R determined deficiencies against a trust, directing the notices of deficiency to the trustee (T). The trust had terminated and all assets had been distributed to the beneficiary (B) prior to the issuance of the notices of deficiency. A timely petition was filed on behalf of the trust by T and B and by B individually.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
FEATHERSTON,
OPINION OF SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE
PANUTHOS,
The Sally Marilyn Garst Trust, John Chrystal, Trustee, c/o Iowa Savings Bank, P.O. Box 75, Coon Rapids, Iowa 50058
| Year | Deficiency |
| 1974 | $574.00 |
| 1975 | $4,303.00 |
| 1977 | $37,758.00 |
| 1978 | $8,173.00 |
| 1979 | $15.00 |
A timely petition was filed from both notices of deficiency on April 24, 1986 on behalf of the trust by the trustee and Sally Marilyn Garst Haerr, and by Sally Marilyn Garst Haerr, individually (hereinafter Haerr), the sole beneficiary and distributee of the trust assets. 2 The petition is executed by counsel on behalf of both petitioners.
Respondent's motion is premised on the theory that Haerr does not have*176 the authority to litigate on behalf of the trust and has no cause of action individually because no liability has been asserted against her. The parties agree that for purposes of the pending motion, the trust was terminated prior to the issuance of the notices of deficiency. In light of this agreement, the Court raised the issue of whether the trust has capacity to commence and maintain an action in this Court. The Court ordered the parties to file Memorandum Briefs on the issues of (1) whether the trustee may litigate this case on behalf of the trust and (2) whether Haerr may litigate this case either individually or on behalf of the trust.
The capacity of a fiduciary or other representative to litigate in this Court must be determined according to the law of the jurisdiction from which he derives his authority. Rule 60(c). The parties agree that there is no Iowa law authorizing a trustee to litigate on behalf of a trust after its termination. However, petitioners point to the Restatement of Trusts for the position that when the time for termination of a trust arrives, the trustee has such powers and duties as are appropriate for winding up the trust. 1
It is a fundamental prerequisite to the existence of a trust that there be a trust corpus consisting of real or personal property. 1 Restatement, Trusts 2d, section 74 (1957). Here, because all trust property has been distributed to the beneficiary, the trust has ceased to exist. A trust which has ceased to exist, no longer possesses the capacity to litigate.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1987 T.C. Memo. 177, 53 T.C.M. 506, 1987 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garst-trust-v-commissioner-tax-1987.