Document: 335 U.S. 595 69 S.Ct. 290 93 L.Ed. 259 HENSLEEv.UNION PLANTERS NAT. BANK & TRUST CO. et al. No. 90. Argued Dec. 4, 1948. Decided Jan. 3, 1949. Motion for Leave to File Petition Rehearing Denied Feb. 14, See 336 915, 601. Mr. Arnold Raum, of Washington, D.C., petitioner. Sam Polk Walker, Memphis, Tenn., respondents. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondents are the executors and trustees estate William Bate Williams. They brought this action refund, with interest, $35,899.12 federal taxes interest paid under protest. The relevant facts, set forth in respondents' complaint admitted by Collector's motion dismiss, as follows: 2 Williams died 1943. Under terms his will, entire gross $508,411.17 was bequeathed respondents hold trust testator's 3 'beloved mother, Elizabeth Williams, during her natural life, full power authority herein conferred. 4 'I hereby direct both my pay mother sum Seven Hundred Fifty (750.00) Dollars a month be used she sees fit. In event income from is not sufficient said ($750.00) each month, then empowered, authorized directed encroach on corpus amount sell any property, real or personal, purpose. 5 'In addition empowered use expend their discretion portion estate, either principal, pleasure, comfort welfare mother. 6 'The first object accomplished administration management take care provide such manner may desire fully likewise manage primarily purpose.' 7 will went distribution remaining at mother's death. Twenty-five per cent total cousin, stated sums cash were left other named legatees. After these legacies, balance over four charities, equal shares. 8 At time death earning net approximately $15,000 year, $6,000 more than paid, $750 that eighty-five years old, lived substantially less had independent investments worth $100,000 which netted an about $300 month. A woman moderate needs without dependents, three later having requested invade behalf. 9 disputed tax liability resulted attempt deduct reliance charitable deduction provision § 812(d) Internal Revenue Code.1 Commissioner denied deduction. Collector here resists refund claim, ground possibility invasion behalf prevented ultimate death, being 'presently ascertainable, hence severable favor private use,' within meaning applicable Treasury Regulation.2 10 On Merchants Nat. Bank Boston v. Revenue, 320 256, 64 108, 88 35, District Court granted dismiss. 74 F.Supp. 113. Appeals reversed. Cir., 166 F.2d 993. It held that, notwithstanding language testamentary 'pleasure, welfare' complaint's allegations great age, means modest testes raised triable issue fact whether threatened subject depletion 11 We agree case governed decision suit should dismissed. apparent face did limit trustees' disbursements conformity some ready standard—as where, example, prime beneficiary 'may necessary suitably maintain much now enjoys.' Ithaca Trust Co. United States, 279 151, 154, 49 291, 73 647. 'to fit.' Beyond wholly utilize welfare,' bearing mind injunction * *.'3 As (320 111), where disburse 'comfort, support, maintenance, and/or happiness' beneficiary, so we think it 'salient purposes widow could, might wish have funds spent do lend themselves reliable prediction.' 262, 112, 35. 12 overlook unlikelihood age circumstances would abandon customary frugality squander son's wealth. But, though there been little chance extravagance waste part consume whole remained. What common experience regard remote generality cases nonetheless beyond realm precise prediction single instance. contingency diminished destroyed considered well insured against, but arithmetic generalization made ascertainable.'4 'Rough guesses, approximations, even relatively accurate valuations market place willing act sufficient.' supra, page 261, 111, 13 Nor significant intact test present ascertainability applied 'at testator.' Ibid. matter congressional grace, Congress determine advisability permitting amendment returns probable vesting has reduced itself unalterable fact. 14 Reversed. 15 Justice DOUGLAS JACKSON dissent upon grounds 257, 263, 109, 16 FRANKFURTER, dissenting. 17 Wisdom too often never comes, one ought reject merely because comes late. Since I realize joined dissenters case, shall compound error pushing still farther. affirm judgment, reasons given below. 26 U.S.C. 812(d), 53 Stat. 124, 125, amended Act 1942, 408(a), 56 949, 1943, 511(a), 58 74, 75, U.S.C.A. 812(d). 'If created purpose, taken value beneficial former only insofar presently use. *' U.S.Treas.Reg. 105 81.44 (1942). Cf. id. 81.46: legatee, devisee, donee, trustee divert property fund, part, purpose rendered it, extent power, deductible directly bequeathed, devised, decedent, limited portion, if any, fund exempt exercise power.' view express priority accorded wishes, fiduciary duty beneficiaries, charitable, ineffective guarantee preservation predictable fraction disposition after testator, indeed, gifts charity subordinate all stating 'is residuary bequest infringe legacies hereinbefore provided.' '* (T)he fundamental question bar contingent can against its guessed at, what construction statute. Did providing determination taxable, intend actual cannot determined known data? Neither taxpayer, nor revenue officer—even equipped aid actuarial art supply—could guess contingency. clear gift character.' Humes 276 487, 494, 48 347, 348, 72 667.

Category: 11