Irwin v. Gavit

Irwin v. Gavit
Irwin v. Gavit
	Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 15, 1925; Decided April 27, 1925
Full case name	Irwin, Former Collector of Internal Revenue, v. Gavit
Citations	268 U.S. 161 ( more ) 45 S. Ct. 475; 69 L. Ed. 897; 1925 U.S. LEXIS 557; 1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 132A; 5 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 5380; 1925-1 C.B. 123; 1925 P.H. P8032
Case history
Prior	Demurrer denied, 275 F. 643 (N.D.N.Y. 1921); affirmed, 295 F. 84 (2d Cir. 1923); cert. granted, 264 U.S. 579(1924).
Holding
	The income paid from a trust or estate is taxable, even where the bequest of the entire corpus of the trust would be considered a gift.
Court membership
	Chief Justice William H. Taft Associate Justices Oliver W. Holmes Jr. · Willis Van Devanter ; James C. McReynolds · Louis Brandeis ; George Sutherland · Pierce Butler ; Edward T. Sanford · Harlan F. Stone
Case opinions
Majority	Holmes, joined by Taft, Stone, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Brandeis, Sanford
Dissent	Sutherland, joined by Butler
Laws applied
	Internal Revenue Code

Last updated October 01, 2023

Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161 (1925), was a case before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the taxability, under United States tax law, of a divided interest in a bequest.^[1] It is notable (and thus appears frequently in law school casebooks)^[2] for the following holding:

Facts and procedural history

Under Anthony N. Brady's will, a sixth of his estate would be held in trust for his granddaughter until she turned 21. During this period, her father would receive some of the income on this principal—in other words, he held an income interest in a testamentary trust for 15 years, with the remainder to his daughter.

The Collector viewed these payments as income, because they constituted the income on principal. Plaintiff argued they were exempt under §102(a) as property acquired by bequest.

He sued the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Irwin) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, which found for the plaintiff. The Second Circuit affirmed. The Commissioner appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue

Is a gift of future income on an estate includable as income (because the bequest is made of the income of the estate and not the estate itself)?

Majority opinion

"[W]e can perceive no distinction relevant to the question before us between a gift of the fund for life and a gift of the income from it." The Code provision excluding gifts and bequests "assumes the gift of a corpus and contrasts it with the income arising from it, but was not intended to exempt income properly so-called. ... "

The Internal Revenue Code at the time provided that while the gains, profits and income "derived from any source whatsoever" was taxable, the value of property acquired by gift or bequest was not to be included in taxable income, and that trustees could be required to account for and withhold certain amounts for the payment of tax.

Justice Holmes, writing for the majority, reasoned that the statute as then written required that the income received by trustees and paid to the remainderman be considered taxable income. Holmes held that although the receipt of the estate funds would be considered a non-taxable bequest, the receipt of income from those funds in installments is taxable.

Reasoning

Under the statute:

§2(A)(1), provides for a tax upon "the entire net income arising or accruing from all sources." (Holmes: These payments seem to be the type of "income" intended by Congress. Eisner v. Macomber .)
§2(B): net income includes "gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever, including the income from but not the value of property acquired by gift, bequest, devise or descent."
§2(D): trustees shall make "return of the net income of the person for whom they act, subject to this tax;" and trustees and others, having the control or payment of fixed or determinable gains, etc., of another person who are required to render a return on behalf of another are "authorized to withhold enough to pay the normal tax."

The language quoted leaves no doubt in our minds that if a fund were given to trustees for A for life with remainder over, the income received by the trustees and paid over to A would be income of A under the statute. It seems to us hardly less clear that even if there were a specific provision that A should have no interest in the corpus, the payments would be income none the less, within the meaning of the statute and the Constitution, and by popular speech. In the first case it is true that the bequest might be said to be of the corpus for life, in the second it might be said to be of the income. But we think that the provision of the act that exempts bequests assumes the gift of a corpus and contrasts it with the income arising from it, but was not intended to exempt income property so-called simply because of a severance between it and the principal fund. No such conclusion can be drawn from Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206, 207 S., 40 S. Ct. 189, 9 A. L. R. 1570. The money was income in the hands of the trustees and we know of nothing in the law that prevented its being paid and received as income by the donee.

Dissent

Justice Sutherland dissented, rejecting Holmes' distinction between the income from the trust and the trust itself, and suggesting that the majority stretched the meaning of the statute too far. He wrote that money is itself property, and therefore the money paid to Marcia Ann Gavit should also be considered part of the bequest:

The corpus of the estate was not the legacy which respondent received, but merely the source which gave rise to it. The money here sought to be taxed was not the fruits of a legacy; it was the legacy itself.^[3]

Academic Commentary

Gavit implies that the §102(a) exclusion goes to the remainderman alone, because he is treated as owning the corpus. In holding that trust income cannot be excluded by an income beneficiary (e.g. life-tenant), "the Court in effect decided not merely how much should be taxed, but to whom." But why not divide the realization of the income somehow between the several heirs?^[2] For example:

Since the life-tenant's interest is a "wasting asset," tax her life-estate/life-tenancy as an annuity, with a present value (at any given time) equal to the present value of the future payments -- an amount she could "recover ratably" each year.
The value of the remainder likewise grows from year to year; that could count as annual income, taxed to the remainderman -- but also added to the basis of his remainder interest (as if he had purchased an endowment policy -- but, as we don't tax the income accumulating interest on an endowment policy until it matures, the remainderman should likewise be permitted to defer this "income" until it "matures")

Related Research Articles

The United States of America has separate federal, state, and local governments with taxes imposed at each of these levels. Taxes are levied on income, payroll, property, sales, capital gains, dividends, imports, estates and gifts, as well as various fees. In 2020, taxes collected by federal, state, and local governments amounted to 25.5% of GDP, below the OECD average of 33.5% of GDP. The United States had the seventh-lowest tax revenue-to-GDP ratio among OECD countries in 2020, with a higher ratio than Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Ireland, Costa Rica, and Turkey.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charitable trust</span> Irrevocable trust established for charitable purposes

A charitable trust is an irrevocable trust established for charitable purposes. In some jurisdictions, it's a more specific term than "charitable organization". A charitable trust enjoys varying degrees of tax benefits in most countries and also generates goodwill. Some important terminology in charitable trusts includes the term "corpus", referring to the assets with which the trust is funded, and the term "donor," which is the person donating assets to a charity.

This aims to be a complete list of the articles on real estate.

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), was a tax case before the United States Supreme Court that is notable for the following holdings:

A gift tax or known originally as inheritance tax is a tax imposed on the transfer of ownership of property during the giver's life. The United States Internal Revenue Service says that a gift is "Any transfer to an individual, either directly or indirectly, where full compensation is not received in return."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Express trust</span> Trust which is explicitly created and not inferred from the parties conduct

In trust law, an express trust is a trust created "in express terms, and usually in writing, as distinguished from one inferred by the law from the conduct or dealings of the parties." Property is transferred by a person to a transferee, who holds the property for the benefit of one or more persons, called beneficiaries. The trustee may distribute the property, or the income from that property, to the beneficiaries. Express trusts are frequently used in common law jurisdictions as methods of wealth preservation or enhancement.

For households and individuals, gross income is the sum of all wages, salaries, profits, interest payments, rents, and other forms of earnings, before any deductions or taxes. It is opposed to net income, defined as the gross income minus taxes and other deductions.

International tax law distinguishes between an estate tax and an inheritance tax. An inheritance tax is a tax paid by a person who inherits money or property of a person who has died, whereas an estate tax is a levy on the estate of a person who has died. However, this distinction is not always observed; for example, the UK's "inheritance tax" is a tax on the assets of the deceased, and strictly speaking is therefore an estate tax.

Howe v Earl of Dartmouth (1802) 7 Ves 137 is an English trusts law case. It laid down the rule of equity in relation to the duties of a trustee in relation to a trust fund where there are successive interests in relation to the trust fund, and seeks to strike a fair balance between the rights of the life tenant and the remainderman. It is one of a number of highly technical common law rules which causes considerable angst where wills and trusts have not been professionally prepared.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Interest in possession trust</span>

An interest in possession trust is a trust in which at least one beneficiary has the right to receive the income generated by the trust or the right to enjoy the trust assets for the present time in another way. The beneficiary with the right to enjoy the trust property for the time being is said to have an interest in possession and is colloquially described as an income beneficiary, or the life tenant.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States trust law</span> Law regulating a wealth-holding legal instrument

United States trust law is the body of law that regulates the legal instrument for holding wealth known as a trust.

Australian trust law is the law of trusts as it is applied in Australia. It is derived from, and largely continues to follow English trust law, as modified by state and federal legislation. A number of unique features of Australian trust law arise from interactions with the Australian systems of company law, family law and taxation.

A charitable remainder unitrust is an irrevocable trust created under the authority of the United States Internal Revenue Code § 664 ("Code"). This special, irrevocable trust has two primary characteristics: (1) Once established, the CRUT distributes a fixed percentage of the value of its assets to a non-charitable beneficiary ; and (2) At the expiration of a specified time, the remaining balance of the CRUT's assets is distributed to charity. The trustee determines the fair market value of the CRUT's assets at the time of contribution and thereafter on the applicable valuation date. The fixed annuity percentage must be at least 5% and no more than 50% of the fair market value of the assets in the corpus. The remainder must be at least 10% of the fair market value of the assets contributed to the CRUT. Code Section 664(d)(1) sets the federal income tax requirements for a charitable remainder unitrust.

In the United States, the estate tax is a federal tax on the transfer of the estate of a person who dies. The tax applies to property that is transferred by will or, if the person has no will, according to state laws of intestacy. Other transfers that are subject to the tax can include those made through a trust and the payment of certain life insurance benefits or financial accounts. The estate tax is part of the federal unified gift and estate tax in the United States. The other part of the system, the gift tax, applies to transfers of property during a person's life.

Early v. Commissioner, 445 F.2d 166 was a United States income tax case, holding that an agreement between taxpayers and heirs of decedent—pursuant to which taxpayers received a joint life interest in income from the trust estate in return for the surrender of stock allegedly given to them by the decedent—was actually a compromise of the taxpayers' disputed right to the stock, and since they claimed the stock as donees, they were to be treated as having acquired their life estate in that capacity for federal income tax purposes.

Taxation of income in the United States has been practised since colonial times. Some southern states imposed their own taxes on income from property, both before and after Independence. The Constitution empowered the federal government to raise taxes at a uniform rate throughout the nation, and required that "direct taxes" be imposed only in proportion to the Census population of each state. Federal income tax was first introduced under the Revenue Act of 1861 to help pay for the Civil War. It was renewed in later years and reformed in 1894 in the form of the Wilson-Gorman tariff.

This collection of lists of law topics collects the names of topics related to law. Everything related to law, even quite remotely, should be included on the alphabetical list, and on the appropriate topic lists. All links on topical lists should also appear in the main alphabetical listing. The process of creating lists is ongoing – these lists are neither complete nor up-to-date – if you see an article that should be listed but is not, please update the lists accordingly. You may also want to include Wikiproject Law talk page banners on the relevant pages.

Lyeth v. Hoey, 305 U.S. 188 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that property received by an heir under a settlement agreement resolving a dispute over the decedent's will is property acquired by "inheritance," which exempts the value of such property from the income tax.

Nestle v National Westminster Bank plc [1992] EWCA Civ 12 is an English trusts law case concerning the duty of care when a trustee is making an investment.

QTIP trust is a type of trust and an estate planning tool used in the United States. "QTIP" is short for "Qualified Terminable Interest Property." A QTIP trust is often used in order to take advantage of the marital deduction and still control the ultimate distribution of the assets at the death of the surviving spouse.

References

↑ Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161 (1925).
1 2 Chirelstein, Marvin (2005). Federal Income Taxation: A Law Student's Guide to the Leading Cases and Concepts (Tenth ed.). New York, NY: Foundation Press. pp. 68–71. ISBN 1-58778-894-2.
↑ Irwin, 268 U.S. at 169.

External links

Works related to Irwin v. Gavit at Wikisource
Text of Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161 (1925) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161 (1925).

[Chirelstein-2] 1 2 Chirelstein, Marvin (2005). Federal Income Taxation: A Law Student's Guide to the Leading Cases and Concepts (Tenth ed.). New York, NY: Foundation Press. pp. 68–71. ISBN 1-58778-894-2.

[3] Irwin, 268 U.S. at 169.

[1]

[2]

[3]