May v. Heiner/Opinion of the Court

By a written instrument dated October 1, 1917, Pauline May, wife of Barney May, 'transferred, set over and assigned' to him and others, as trustees (with power to change the investments), certain described securities-bonds, notes, corporate stocks, and money-in trust, to collect the income therefrom, and after discharging taxes, expenses, etc., to pay the balance 'to Barney May during his lifetime, and after his decease, to Pauline May during her lifetime, and after her decease, all the property in said Trust, in whatever form or shape it may be, shall, after the expenses of the Trust have been deducted or paid, be distributed equally among' her four children, their distributees, or appointees.

Mrs. May died March 25, 1920. Thereafter the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, purporting to proceed under authority of the Revenue Act of 1918, tit. 4, 40 Stat. 1057, 1096, 1097, demanded that her executors pay additional taxes reckoned upon the value of the property held under the above-described trust instrument. Having paid the required sum, the executors-petitioners here-asked that it be refunded. By order of February 20, 1924, the Commissioner denied their request. In support of this action he said:

'This trust was included in decedent's gross estate on final     audit and review on the ground that it was intended to take      effect in possession or enjoyment at or after death. In this     case the principal of the trust fund could not take effect in      possession until the death of the decedent. According to the     provisions of the trust agreement, if the decedent's husband      died before her, the income was to be paid to her until her      death. The gift of the principal, therefore, could not take     effect during the decedent's lifetime. This case comes     literally within the terms of the statute, and it has been      held by a number of courts in different States that such a      transfer as this is taxable, these cases being decided under      statutes using the same language as is contained in the      Federal Estate Tax Law.'

Seeking to enforce their claim the executors sued the collector in the District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania; judgment in his favor was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. The matter is here upon certiorari.

The record fails clearly to disclose whether or no Mrs. May survived her husband. Apparently she did not. But this is not of special importance, since the refund should have been allowed in either event.

The transfer of October 1, 1917, was not made in contemplation of death within the legal significance of those words. It was not testamentary in character and was beyond recall by the decedent. At the death of Mrs. May no interest in the property held under the trust deed passed from her to the living; title thereto had been definitely fixed by the trust deed. The interest therein which she possessed immediately prior to her death was obliterated by that event.

Section 401, Revenue Act of 1918 (40 Stat. 1096), lays a charge 'upon the transfer of the net estate of every decedent dying after the passage of this Act,' and section 402 directs that 'the value of the gross estate of the decedent shall be determined by including the value at the time of his death of all property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, wherever situated * *  * (c) To the extent of any interest therein of which the decedent has at any time made a transfer, or with respect to which he has at any time created a trust, in contemplation of or intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment at or after his death. * *  * '

The statute imposes 'an excise upon the transfer of an estate upon death of the owner.' Y. M. C. A. v. Davis, 264 U.S. 47, 50, 44 S.C.t. 291, 292, 68 L. Ed. 558; Nichols v. Coolidge, 274 U.S. 531, 537, 47 S.C.t. 710, 71 L. Ed. 1184, 52 A. L. R. 1081.

In Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 278 U.S. 339, 347, 348, 49 S.C.t. 123, 125, 73 L. Ed. 410, the estate tax prescribed by the Revenue Act of 1918, § 402(c), and carried into the Act of 1921, 42 Stat. 278, as section 402(c) thereof, was under consideration. This court said:

'In its plan and scope the tax is one imposed on transfers at     death or made in contemplation of death and is measured by      the value at death of the interest which is transferred. * *      * One may freely give his property to another by absolute      gift without subjecting himself or his estate to a tax, but      we are asked to say that this statute means that he may not      make a gift inter vivos, equally absolute and complete,      without subjecting it to a tax if the gift takes the form of      a life estate in one with remainder over to another at or      after the donor's death. It would require plain and     compelling language to justify so incongruous a result and we      think it is wanting in the present statute. * *  *

'In the light of the general purpose of the statute and the     language of section 401 explicitly imposing the tax on net estates of decedents, we think it at least doubtful whether      the trusts or interests in a trust intended to be reached by      the phrase in section 402(c) 'to take effect in possession or      enjoyment at or after his death,' include any others than      those passing from the possession, enjoyment or control of      the donor at his death and so taxable as transfers at death      under section 401. That doubt must be resolved in favor of     the taxpayer. * *  * '

The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is erroneous and must be reversed. The cause will be remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

Reversed.