Garst Trust v. Commissioner

1987 T.C. Memo. 177, 53 T.C.M. 506, 1987 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 172
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedApril 1, 1987
DocketDocket No. 11024-86.
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

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.

Bluebook
Garst Trust v. Commissioner, 1987 T.C. Memo. 177, 53 T.C.M. 506, 1987 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 172 (tax 1987).

Opinion

SALLY MARILYN GARST TRUST, JOHN CHRYSTAL, TRUSTEE, AND SALLY MARILYN GARST HAERR, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Garst Trust v. Commissioner
Docket No. 11024-86.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1987-177; 1987 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 172; 53 T.C.M. (CCH) 506; T.C.M. (RIA) 87177;
April 1, 1987.

*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. Held, the trust as a nonexistent party cannot litigate before this Court. Thus, neither T nor B can file a petition on behalf of the trust. Held further, that B cannot file a petition in her individual capacity since no notice of deficiency or notice of liability was issued to her. Held further, that this matter is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Frank J. Carroll, for the petitioners.
Julie Tamuleviz and Rogelio A. Villageliu, for the respondent.

FEATHERSTON

MEMORANDUM OPINION

FEATHERSTON, Judge: This case was assigned to Special Trial Judge Peter J. Panuthos for the purpose of hearing, consideration and ruling on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to the Petitioner Sally Marilyn Garst Haerr and to Change Caption. 1 After a review of the record, we agree with and adopt his opinion which is set forth below.

OPINION OF SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE

PANUTHOS, Special Trial Judge: This matter came before the Court on respondent's*175 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to the Petitioner Sally Marilyn Garst Haerr and to Change Caption. Two notices of deficiency were issued on January 30, 1986. One notice relates to the taxable years 1974 and 1975 and the other notice concerns the taxable years 1977 through 1979. The notices were addressed to and determined deficiencies as follows:

The Sally Marilyn Garst Trust, John Chrystal, Trustee, c/o Iowa Savings Bank, P.O. Box 75, Coon Rapids, Iowa 50058

YearDeficiency
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 Restatement, Trusts 2d, section 344*177 (1957). However, comment A to section 344 states that "the period for winding up a trust is the period after the time for termination of the trust has arrived and before the trust is terminated by the distribution of the trust property." Here, the parties agree that all trust property was distributed to Haerr on December 30, 1983. 3 Thus, any "winding up powers" the trustee had, ceased on December 30, 1983.

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. Harold Patz Trust v. Commissioner,69 T.C. 497, 501 (1977)

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

Related

Hillcrest Investment Co. v. Utah Department of Transportation
2012 UT App 256 (Court of Appeals of Utah, 2012)
Estate of Hughey v. Commissioner
1987 T.C. Memo. 383 (U.S. Tax Court, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
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.