State Sav. Loan & Trust Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev.
Opinion
This appeal involves deficiency income tax assessments for the years 1926^ 1927, and 1928. Petitioner was taxed as trustee under a trust indenture created by one Gardner and his wife for the benefit of their nine grandchildren. The issues arise out of and are determined by a construction of the trust agreement. It is petitioner’s contention (1) that the trust instrument created not one, hut nine separate trusts, one for each of their nine grandchildren respectively, and (2) that petitioner, as trustee, was unqualifiedly required to pay over the income to the beneficiaries. The board held that but one trust had been created and that the income was taxable to the trustee because be was endowed with discretion as to distribution of the trust income to the beneficiaries.
The Revenue Act of 1926, § 219 (a), 26 USCA § 960 note, provides that the tax shall be assessed upon income of property held in trust when such income may, in the discretion of the fiduciary, either be distributed to the beneficiaries or accumulated.
The trustee made no distribution of income during 3926-1928, the years in question. Only one income tax return was filed for the trust in both 1926 and 1927, but nine separate returns were filed in 1928.
Material portions of the trust indenture are set forth in the margin verbatim. 1
*484 The intention of the settlors as disclosed by the provisions of the instrument, is largely controlling in the construction of the indenture. Huhbell v. Burnet (C. C. A.) 46 F.(2d) 446; Stark v. U. S. (D. C.) 14 F.(2d) 616; Carnahan v. Peabody (D. C.) 29 F.(2d) 412; Highland Park Mfg. Co. v. Steele (C. C. A.) 232 F. 10; Mercer v. Buchanan (C. C.) 132 F. 501.
It seems to us that the settlors intended to create but one comprehensive trust in which each of the beneficiaries was to have a one-ninth beneficial interest. Likewise, it seems rather clear that the net income derived from said trust estate was to be distributed to the henefieiari.es only as in the trustee’s judgment it was deemed best to do so.
The terminology of the trust instrument indicative of a single trust is: “The trust fund,” “the body of said trust estate,” “the trust estate,” “one-third of the trust estate in which said grandchild has a beneficial interest,” “the trust agreement,” and “the whole of that part of the trust estate in which said heir has a beneficial interest.” ' The only provision which might be interpreted as refuting this evidence is the following: “Any beneficiary under this agreement * * * shall have the right to designate as trustee of that part of said trust fund in which they are interested, any trust company, * * * the trustee * * * shall deliver to the trust company so named * * * all assets of every kind * • * belonging to that part of said trust estate in which the beneficiary making-the designation is entitled to the income, and the trustee shall make proper assignments and conveyances necessary for the complete transfer to the new trustee of all assets in its possession in which the beneficiary making such designation then has a beneficial interest * *
There is nothing to show that any beneficiary ever made use of this provision. It is possible that if a beneficiary elected to avail himself of this right, he would have caused a severance of the trust estate as to his interest, hut it is not necessary for us now to consider that contingency.
The fact that for two years the trustee so interpreted the instrument is somewhat persuasive.
The trustee was given discretion as to the distribution of the income. Note the follow *485 ing provision of the indenture: “Said trustee shall pay all or part of the net income on the trust estate created for the education, comfort and support of said grandchildren whenever m the judgment of said trustee it is for the best interest of said grandchildren or any of them so to do.”
_ ll he order of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
63 F.2d 482 (State Sav. Loan & Trust Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.