In 1925 and 1926 decedent and his wife created two trusts, decedent contributing 80 per cent, and his wife 20 per cent. Each trust provided for income to the wife during decedent's life, and on his death income was to be divided between the wife and a daughter or go to the survivor for life. On the death. of the survivor of the wife and daughter the corpus was to be distributed "According to the Statutes of descent and distribution of the State of Ohio, to the heirs at law of [decedent] and [wife], providing the heirs of [decedent] and [wife] are the same persons. Should [the decedent and wife] leave no lineal descendants of their direct line, and the next of kin of each were collaterals then said trust fund shall up on termination of this trust be distributed . . . to the collaterals of [the decedent and wife ratably] ." There were no reservations of powers by the decedent or his wife. On the death of the decedent the collector imposed and the executor paid a deficiency assessment on the corpus of the trusts. The executor's claim for refund was refused and he sued in the federal district court to recover. The district court held that the value of the property transferred into the trusts by the decedent was includible in decedent's taxable estate under -section 811(c) of the Internal Revenue Code as a transfer "intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment at or after his death." On appeal, held, affirmed. Beach v. Busey, (C.C.A. 6th, 1946) 156 F. (2d) 496.
John W. Riehm,
TAXATION--ESTATE TAX--TRANSFERS TAKING EFFECT AT DEATH--HALLOCK DOCTRINE,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol45/iss2/19