Mellon v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Third Circuit

Mellon v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

174 F.2d 828

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 11, 1949

DocketNos. 9869-9872

StatusPublished

This text of 174 F.2d 828 (Mellon v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mellon v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 174 F.2d 828 (3d Cir. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The question involved in this group of income tax cases is whether the settlor of each of the trusts in question created one trust, with several and shifting beneficiaries, or whether -he created a main trust with subsidiary trusts for individual minor beneficiaries. This question is said by both sides to be one determined by the settlor’s intention as that intention is shown by examination of the instrument creating the trust. The Tax Court, after full statement of the facts, found that the instrument created one trust. 11 T.C. 135. Assuming that this is a fact conclusion which we may set aside if clearly erroneous, we nevertheless shall affirm because we think that the conclusion reached by the Tax Court is correct.

The decisions of the Tax Court will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The question involved in this group of income tax cases is whether the settlor of each of the trusts in question created one trust, with several and shifting beneficiaries, or whether -he created a main trust with subsidiary trusts for individual minor beneficiaries. This question is said by both sides to be one determined by the settlor’s intention as that intention is shown by examination of the instrument creating the trust. The Tax Court, after full statement of the facts, found that the instrument created one trust. 11 T.C. 135. Assuming that this is a fact conclusion which we may set aside if clearly erroneous, we nevertheless shall affirm because we think that the conclusion reached by the Tax Court is correct.

The decisions of the Tax Court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 F.2d 828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mellon-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca3-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack