Legal Document

520 U.S. 93117 S.Ct. 1124137 L.Ed.2d 235 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner,v.ESTATE Otis C. HUBERT, deceased, C & S Sovran Trust Company (Georgia) N.A., Co-Executor. No. 95-1402. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Nov. 12, 1996. Decided March 18, 1997. Syllabus * The executors decedent Hubert's substantial estate filed a federal tax return about year after his death. Subsequently, petitioner Commissioner Internal Revenue issued notice deficiency, claiming underreporting liability caused by estate's asserted entitlement to marital and charitable deductions. While redetermination petition was pending in Tax Court, interested parties settled much litigation surrounding that had begun agreement divided residue principal, assumed be worth $26 million on date death, equally between trusts trust. It also provided would pay its administration expenses either from principal or income assets comprise corpus trusts, preserving executors' discretion apportion such expenses. paid $500,000 nearly $2 rest income. then recalculated liability, reducing deductions amount but not income, used concluded using for required dollar-for-dollar reduction disagreed, finding no reason power, exercise their Appeals affirmed. Held: judgment is 63 F.3d 1083, KENNEDY, J., joined THE CHIEF JUSTICE, STEVENS, GINSBURG, JJ., taxpayer does have reduce deduction bequests were generated during allocated those bequests. Pp. ____-____. (a) standard date-of-death valuation determine value property included gross purposes. agree that, purposes question presented, charitable, 26 U.S.C. §2055, marital, §2056, statutes should read require same answer, notwithstanding differences language. Since statute regulation speak more specific terms this than statute, plurality concentrates provisions, holding here applies both (b) allows qualifying only extent property's "value.'' So when use death purposes, deduction's will limited value. Marital "value'' "net value,'' determined principles as if bequest gift spouse, CFR §20.2056(b)-4(a), i.e., present controlling date, §25.2523(a)-1(e); see §§20.2056(b)-4(d), 20.2055-2(f)(1). Although presented controlled these provisions' exact terms, it natural apply present-value principle here. Thus, assuming necessary take into account done subtracting bequest, computed subject expense charges, (as date) expected Cf. Ithaca Co. v. States, 279 151, 49 291, 73 L.Ed. 647. There dispute entire interests transferred trust qualify deductions; before one valuation. (c) Only material limitations right receive are taken valuing interest passing surviving spouse. §20.2056(b)-4(a). A provision requiring allowing "may'' deemed "material limitation'' spouse's For example, where corpus, it, small, anticipated chargeable may compared with assets' Whether limitation depend part nature generating An obligation likely spouse derived solely less where, here, valued being equivalent transfer fee. (d) found facts trustee's out reverse Court's failure specify considered relevant materiality inquiry. could been thought immaterial light generate. P. 1132 (e) This approach consistent language §2056(b), interpreted Stapf, 375 118, 126, 84 248, 254-255, 11 195, which held exceed economic received spouse.'' basis Commissioner's argument she seeks avoid "double deduction'' violation §642(g). Moreover, statute's legislative history relevance support position. O'CONNOR, SOUTER THOMAS, sources point test quantitative whether allocation administrative postmortem reduces deductions, met unusual factual record case. Neither Code itself nor supplies guidance always, sometimes, at all. However, regulations revenue rulings can relied decide issue. Title §20.2056(b)-4(a) directs reader ask executor's allocate bequest's upon "right property,'' "account must effect.'' Because power undeniably "limitation'' case hinges "material.'' In Ruling 93-48, ruled §20.2056(b)-4(a)'s "ordinarily'' reduced an executor allocates payments deferred taxes spousal Such issue so similar they treated under treatment indicates some, all, financial obligations deduction. virtue Ruling, has created rule example set forth expressed preference construction entitled deference. proper measure yet decided Commissioner. absence Commissioner, any other test, provides reversal. Here, strategy effectively preempted $1.5 diminution argued diversion never evidence quantitatively material. Her offer proof left little choice reach carefully crafted conclusion it. announced delivered opinion, REHNQUIST, C.J., STEVENS joined. opinion concurring judgment, SCALIA, dissenting BREYER, opinion. Kent L. Jones, Washington, DC, petitioner. David D. Aughtry, Atlanta, GA, respondents. Justice KENNEDY GINSBURG join. 1 consequence life's two certainties decedent's faced deficiencies, giving rise 2 Hubert substantial, $30 he died. Considerable probate civil ensued soon various proceedings wife children; nephew; coexecutors, Citizens Southern (Georgia), N. A., predecessor respondent A.; district attorney Cobb County, Georgia, behalf certain beneficiaries; Georgia State Commission. made wills codicils, legal disputes most concerned distribution assets; confined this. addition contests alleging fraud undue influence, there satellite suits including claims slander abuse process. Probate Superior Courts Georgia. 3 attracted attention petitioner, Revenue. 1987, 1990, some $14 million. major challenge claimed One deduction, 68A Stat. 392, amended, charity. deficiency asserted, reasons charity did petitioned deficiency. 4 Within days settled. settlement share, we assume our discussion total day half charities. stipulated prevent them stipulation streamlined resolve 5 recent given apportionment provisions all law resided. expenses, attorney's fees, order 6 based principal. include agreed throughout amounts. estate, however, balance disagreed contended purpose amounts 7 reviewed judges part, rejected 101 T.C. 314, 1993 WL 414716 (1993). court noted resolved against Estate Street Mem.1988-553, 1988 128662 (T.C.1988). Sixth Circuit reversed aspect Street, 974 F.2d 723, 727-729 (1992), instant adhered view said, circumstances Eleventh affirmed adopting latter's noting resulting conflict Circuit's decision Federal Burke 994 1576, cert. denied, 510 990, 114 546, 126 448 See 1084-1085 (C.A.11 1995). We granted certiorari, 517 ____, 116 1564, 134 664 (1996), and, Circuit, now affirm judgment. II 8 first step calculating taxable Though alternative authorized, §§2031(a), 2051. later compute §§2055 (charitable), 2056 (marital). Our inquiry involves relationship computations. sections differs. instance, §2056 requires consideration, encumbrances imposes "in manner determined.'' §2056(b)(4). Section 2055 Treasury Regulation moreover, amplified aspects discuss. statute. These notwithstanding, respondents answer. adopt approach. decide, concentrate provisions. 9 begin deduct "an equal passes passed determining estate.'' §2056(a). 10 directed statutory capping "the . explicit Treas. Reg. says "value, [unless uses date].'' applying §25.2523(a)-1, "Gift spouse; general,'' includes subsection (e), "Valuation,'' parallels §20.2056(b)-4(d); §20.2055-2(f)(1). provides: 12 "If payable donor another individual life term years, remainder donor's respect remainder, [26 §] 7520. (that is, gift) accordance rules stated §25.2512-5 or, prior periods, §25.2512-5A.'' 13 7520, turn, refers tables located §20.2031-7. involving amount, reason, do attempt force detailed mold. natural, hand, words, infra, __-__ (discussing materiality), 14 application further supported Holmes' explanation theory 647 (1929). bequeathed charity, particular wife. After qualified stood 1929, how bequest. Government reflect wife's probable expectancy smaller Government, because time known had, fact, lived six months Holmes wrote: 15 "The impression absurd resort statistical probabilities you know fact. But due inaccurate thinking -[Value] depends largely prophecies future; real prophecy turns false comes true Tempting correct uncertain cannot changed exceptions general specifically Act.'' Id., 155, S.Ct., 292. 16 rather fact died her husband. 17 suggested direction gift-tax qualification regulation, §25.2523(e)-1(f), ruling interpreting Rev. Rul. 69-56, 1969-1 Cum. Bul. 224. Post, (O'CONNOR, judgment). suggestion misunderstands ruling. concerns deductible interest.'' Before interest's qualifies deductible. 18 structural problem directing reference §25.2523(e)-1(f) Qualification different steps. prescribes conditions tax. tracks §20.2056(b)-5(f), Any apply, understood incorporated would, necessity, already analyzed earlier, stage estate-tax marital-deduction §20.2056(b)-5(f). interpretation, need If failed, nothing value; passed, stage. render superfluous. 19 think adopted 69-56. to: 20 "charge commissions, accounting custodian [does] result disallowance unless execution directions powers could, cause substantially full beneficial enjoyment transferred.'' 21 cites proposition §20.2056(b)-5(f)(1) §25.2523(e)-1(f)(1), parts estate- discussed above. provide part. Where happens, disallowed diminished. See, e.g., §20.2056(b)-5(b); §25.2523(e)-1(b); §§2056(b)(5), 2523(e). context speaks "diminution'' respectively. us Regulations 25.2523(e)-1(f) 20.2056(b)-5(f) 69-56 bear 22 contends also, events, amount. says: 23 value, date]. net applicable determined. effect property. applied benefit until trustee incurred (1996). 24 help providing "is used'' period discussed, supra, __-__. quite accurate description said: 25 "That section merely necessarily significant T.C., 324-325. indication charge express postponement beyond reasonable administration. §20.2056(b)-5(f)(9) (1996) (requiring postponements administration). By contrast, difficulty conceiving situations Suppose nonincome producing, expect small. circumstances, so, charged allowable 27 "material'' analysis finds strong text 20.2056(b)-4(a). gives material-bequests trust'' suggests difference outright fee income-producing almost always more. beneficiaries future stream, significant. case, comprising appointment (the GPA trust) irrevocable election QTIP trust), Brief Petitioner 8-9, n. (" [T]he includable spouse''). As result, just administrable, like going-concern businesses, see, §20.2031-3, greater complexity uncertainty. 28 here: "On us, find income.'' 325. explained, contend failed give adequate consideration elaborate. size might incur costs. nonetheless 29 disagreement majority dissenters involved distinction actual Judge Halpern's Beghe, explained: 30 "I believe undone earned estate. Once accepted appropriate next whether, beneficiary. answer yes, follows easily beneficiary, beneficiary decreased.'' 342-343 (opinion part). 31 recognized anticipated, actual, id., 342, Halpern, J.) ("It true, course, actually [included estate] discounted administration'') (emphasis deleted). recognize following own logic, rule, compliance ones, affect were, sense, closer §25.2523(a)-1(e)'s whereas insists reduction. dissenters' wait-and-see inquiry, still odds regulations: What spouse? 32 §2056(b)(4), 33 "In allowed section- 34 ..... 35 " (B) encumbered manner, incurs imposed interest, encumbrance shall 36 195 (1963). husband's gave wife, conditioned relinquishing owned couple's children. husband exceeded relinquished 254. language, otherwise go Using valuation, arrive Ibid. 37 oral argument, Under §642(g), §2053(a)(2), them, deductible, off both. so-called double rhetorical, statutory. colleagues dissent recognize, "nothing §642(g) compels (or charitable) whenever elects __ (Scalia, dissenting) original). nevertheless deducted tax, well form inflated Tr. Oral Arg. 15. however. When used, state will, asset values charges subjected. above, fail payments. argument. design 38 invites Assuming sake Senate Report accompanying 39 give. leaves pays, pay, increase residue, acquired purchase Accordingly, additional deduction.'' S.Rep. 1013, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 2, p. (1948). 40 supports analysis. underscores occurs 41 position inconsistent regulations. facts, 42 ordered. 43 whom THOMAS join, 44 "Logic taxation best friends.'' Sonneborn Brothers Cureton, 262 506, 522, 643, 648, 67 1095 (1923) (McReynolds, concurring). cases today, complete strangers. That laws times disarray discomforting thought. I understand why attempts extrapolate generalized perhaps hope making sense law. applicability-not mention validity-of far clear, temptation make chaos cost resisted, especially resolved-albeit imperfectly-by directly sources. point, disagree ultimately dictated therefore write separately explain my plurality's though reasoning, correct. 45 citizen resident dies, "all [of his] property, personal, tangible intangible, wherever situated.'' §§2001(a), 2031(a). Specifically excluded taxation, devised testamentary gifts §2056(a), §2055(a). do, removed "gross estate'' exempted §2051. Calculating takes time, marshaling distributing ultimate beneficiaries. During process, often earn To deal eventuality, permits administrator choose allocating principal), assets. Everyone agrees portion diverted accordingly "reduced'' incurred. ante, (plurality opinion); post, (SCALIA, dissenting); 19; Respondent 6. what becomes chooses second option devise. 46 guidance. Accord, dissenting). §2056(b)(4)(B), 47 "where [any deduction] 48 burden arguably "encumbrance'' "obligation interest,'' "encumbrance account.'' done, view, possible tell §2056(b)(4)(B) Nor Code's shape ambiguous §2056(b)(4)(B)'s reads: 50 '' (1948) added). 51 italicized passage helpful explicitly referred "administrative expenses'' instead "claims clear latter former: nowhere defines estate,'' immediately preceding paragraph discusses mortgages. mortgages differ many ways (e.g., pre-exist fixed time), sum, illuminating. 52 All remains vacuum rulings, key (1996): 53 property.'' 54 doubt value'' deducted. assessing examine devise inter vivos gift. §2056(b)(4)(A) (also referring gifts). 55 latches onto §25.2523(a)-1(e) refers. Ante, (referring §7520; §20.2031-7 (1996)). define "tak[e] [account] [a spouse's] frankly admits antecedent inquiry-when constitutes limitation.'' __. believes indirectly implying underlying dovetails nicely __-__, able conclude wrong not, theory, focus But, SCALIA points out, universally conflicts §20.2056(b)-4(c) (1996); suggest questionable context, meaningful 56 zeroed §§25.2523(e)-1(f)(3) (4) which, together, "trustees' commissions charges'' trust's disqualify long donee receives "substantial enjoyment'' 325, (1993); §20.2056(b)-5(f) (tracking §25.2523(e)-1(f)). 57 224 58 Both argue inapposite address affects __-__; They rendered superfluous existed lacked T. C., 325-326 (adopting argument). reading, thing failing __; potent criticisms. matter poorly drafted ill conceived be, plain hard ignore. end, draws regarding word: does, particular, favor respondents' position; wholly satisfying. 59 Fortunately, consider method deduction: 60 61 From ("The beginning what, word "material' means''). 62 quibble over definition "material''-substantial'' "relevant''-precedes dictionary, ibid.; American Heritage Dictionary 772 (2d ed.1985) ("substantial'' precedes "relevant''), debate beside point. 1993-2 270 residuary [or marital] [not] [interest] property''). 93-48 disregarded promulgated prevail contrary repeatedly failed. sure, whole-heartedly embraced totally ignore entity promulgating really want Connecticut Nat. Bank Germain, 503 249, 253-254, 112 1146, 1149-1150, 117 391 (1992) ("We again courts presume legislature means there''); West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. Casey, 499 83, 98, 111 1138, 1146-1147, 113 68 (1991) (rejecting congressional enacting statute] ordinary meaning terms''). initial matter, difficult reconcile intents accruing functionally indistinguishable definition, neither exist death; administer defer. Yet types inevitable once open virtually impossible close deferral incursion theoretically avoided donates pays up front estimates occur. are, ways, despite applicability taxes. 64 important, rejection notion every warranting purports deviate payment __, undercut Ruling's implications burdens deduction; others not. line contends, since surely reduces, to, passes.'' reaching quantum substantiality concept alien taxation; common. 75-298, 1975-2 290 (exempting banks foreign governments, participation domestic commercial activity de minimis); 90-60, 1990-2 (establishing minimis taxpayers who 33.3% partnership post bond enable defer credit recapture low-income housing). 65 66 "An [the limitation] Even connotes "possibility permissibility,'' "from constructions example's plausible, worthy National Muffler Dealers Assn., 440 472, 476, 99 1304, 1310, 519 (1979). below spent estimate lifetime. amicus comparison projected stream App. College Counsel Amicus Curiae 1-2. plurality, drawing looks "date-of-death [is] None tests specifies particularity threshold crossed. §2503(b) (setting $10,000 annual minimum attaches). proliferation absence, others, 69 share SCALIA's reluctance standard. Were considering pressed Mr. strategy. appears elected marshal resources behind material, (Stipulation Agreed Issues) argument); 47. bore proving (since omitted original Notice Deficiency), Rule 142(a), [it].'' resist seemingly counterintuitive protecting strategy, continues adhere even now, reconsider 70 complex spawned four separate opinions Court. simple straightforward. confronted maze lead opposite directions. labyrinth exist, empowered promulgate new clear. Indeed, prevents announcing very advances litigation. Until materiality, accordingly, 71 BREYER joins, dissenting. 72 today's afterthought. Instead relying interpretive mistakenly inhere thereby creates boondoggle contemplated Congress, announces deductibility IRS apply. straightforward disposition, namely (and charity) satisfy respectfully dissent. bequests.1 places First, expected, correctly recognizes, agree, commensurately. Second, [bequeathed spouse] §2056(b)(4)(B). 2056(b)(4)(B) controls leads pass 74 implicitly Mrs. burdened paying resolving contest, residue. makes 52% thus plainly —(The accounted remaining 48% residue.) 75 task rudimentary proves Regulations, concern none (inclusion maintains income). derive §25.2523(a)-1(e), acknowledge [t]he [that refers],'' going "exact terms,'' relevance. Like counterparts §§20.2031-1(b), 20.2031-7, simply instruction discuss below, §2053(a)(2) §20.2053-3(a) incorrectly suggests, charge. 76 Respondent's strongest Bull. 224, inclusion run afoul requires, life-estate settlor intend enjoy "substantially degree accord person unqualifiedly designated trust.'' §§2523(e)-1(f)(1), 2056(b)-5(f)(1) interpretation regulations, purported "h[o]ld'' "powe[r]'' "does deals mere existence income; construed mean everyone incorrect, judgment); seems me obvious addressing today confirmed longstanding view-which antedates 69-56-is reduced, Appellee, Ballantine Tomlinson, 18,736 (C.A.5 1961), 18; Alston 21,402 1965), B 77 interprets mandates 20.2056(b)-4(a) 78 alternate —(Emphasis added.) 79 pursuant authority Secretary enforce Code. §7805(a). acknowledged, judicial deference Secretary's handiwork "helps guarantee written "masters subject.''' 477, 1306-1307, (1979), quoting Moore, 95 760, 763, 588 (1878). ambiguous, consistently Department's """implement mandate manner.''''' Inc., 1307, Cartwright, 411 550, 93 1713, 1716, 528 (1973), turn Correll, 389 299, 307, 88 445, 449-450, 537 (1967). Cottage Savings Assn. 554, 560-561, 1503, 1507-1508, 589 (1991). 80 recognized, crucial limitations.'' Curiously enough, come forward term, former contending "it limitation,'' 31, enough qualify. Today's approach, defining displaying examples "relatively substantial.'' If, says, represents small overall generate ""may' material'' expects incur) costs'' insufficient 81 analysis, me, means. common parlance, sometimes bears evidently respondents: "substantial,'' "serious'' "important.'' New Shorter Oxford English 1714 (1993) (def. 3); Webster's International 1514 ed.1950) 2a). Relatively diminutions count. income,'' expansive naturally suggested-the lawyers move testimony "immaterial'': Not "insubstantial'' "unimportant,'' "irrelevant'' "inconsequential. 1109 (3d ed.1992) 4: [b]eing consequential,'' listing "relevant'' synonym). deals, sentence recites, spouse'' added), consequential passes. Many not-for requirement spend five reading alienated relative. 82 amply demonstrated consequences leave taxpayer, courts, guess decrease qualify-without hint "ballpark'' figure, indeed "absolute materiality'' dollars instance) relative needlessly impute confusing readily precise. text, considerable deference, 488-489, 1312-1313; 1507-1508. 83 concurrence (more unnatural) adopted-and accorded marital-bequest income-because acquiesced lower holdings 93-48). asserts indistinguishable'' "created rule'' shielding affecting calculation contention, Appeals. 723 (C.A.6 1992); Whittle 379 (C.A.7 1993); Richardson 89 1193, 1987 257908 (1987). Rather continuing expend seemed bring Treasury, chose, "adopt result'' then-recent decisions changed. expressly continued adherence reaffirming 73-98, consumed modifying insofar whose results themselves distinguished reasoned while accrue accrues §2056(b)-4(a) silent F.2d, 727, 729. distinctions advanced persuasive herself avail), hardly irrational arbitrary capricious maintain issued; utterly was, eliminates grounds relevant. concurrence's suffers flaw. extends well. __-__) 85 Respondents assert "substantiality'' implied last describes income-to-pay-administration-expenses [a]n taking limitations] applied,'' implies, goes, applied-namely posits) "substantial.'' "may.'' possibility permissibility in, "My boss said York''), contingency 86 (in verbatim concurrence, took third pause consider. §25.2523(e)-1(f)(3), §25.2523(e)-1(f)(3) stated, trust, disqualified that: having 325-326, reasoning fails number reasons. provision; purport instruct fundamentally, renders phrase deprives irrelevant. synonymous governing identical C.F.R. 20.2056(b)-5(f)(9) lack reasonably "As postponed, §20.2056(b)-4. 87 My understanding acknowledge, component asset's Maass Higgins, 312 443, 448, 631, 633-634, 940 (1941); §20.2031-1(b) —(This explains added computing estate: value.) properly commensurately decline, follow logical conclusion. (which values) succinctly explained respected commentator: "Beneficiaries compensated delay receiving possession -[I]t combination rights-that possess future-that rights get gets deathtime Davenport, Through Fog, Notes, 1107, 1110 way 90 Besides erroneous something excess adopts unique methodology materiality. Consistent apparent prohibit examination events concludes information available death-a espoused litigant, amici, arose years ago. misled demands symmetry: clearly reject symmetry sharply discriminate allowance concerned. $506,989 §2053(a)(2). Pet. Cert. 3a. "administration expenses' necessarily, "upon vague estimate,'' §20.2053-1(b)(3) costs ascertain exactitude flatly contradicts regulations.2 91 calculated expenditures §2056(b)(4)(A), inheritance taxes, control. —(With face itself, §2055(c).) suggesting latter, former, Compare [T]here 2001, [tax], interest'' added)) income'' added)). 92 short, concerning contradicted plagued practical problems. Most prominently, unadministrable. Service engage peculiar, nunc pro tunc, three-stage investigation believed decedent. highly speculative begins, presume, multiplied likelihood (for estimating chances contest develop). Next, calculate Finally, if, willing buyer deem [i.e., substantial] Just court, presiding controversy supposed blind later-developed gauge gauged mystery me. cases, feasible reconstruct estimation later. tremendous uncertainty undoubtedly produce extensive reluctant attribute intention sort inherently 94 peculiar results. suffice: Assume hypothetical $5 estranged son publicly wage fight will. Further, week mother put aside money "only bequests,'' approximately $25 million, few estates exist. thirty final approach: obtain windfall Congress intended. decedent, §2053, (provided fall within deduction) files statement stating fiduciary returns prohibited Notwithstanding guise Of electing return, income-tax choice, road map §642 potential defeats expectation. III 96 ignores decides novel vision system. squarely Circuit. exactly annuity sufficient 348-349 (Beghe, basis, treated. adequately briefed parties, remand allow instance. 97 98 join long, consistently, 293 311 1961); 349 1965); Revenue, Roney I. R., 801, 1960 1078 (1960), aff'd. per curiam, 294 774 Reply regulation's interprets. add brief basic regulatory objectives realistic Assume, proviso 25% son. lasts several generates time. On assumptions, important (included value) receive, namely, years. son, asset), permit valuable income) without seem realistically appraise circumstances. §§20.2056(b)-5(f)(9), A. Casner J. Pennell, Planning §13.11, pp. 138-139, §13.14.6, (5th ed.1988); cf. Friedberg C.I.R., TCM 3080 ¶92, 310 P-H Memo TC, 1992 115527 (delay value). And here? perspective, for, state, focuses "interest 125, 253, 100 treats equals equal. writes checks, debits determines impact. Thus $100,000 $1 year, check year's (assuming 10% away here-irrelevant complexities) commitment say, flow similarity argues treatment. §642(g); escape (through provision's granting advantage whichever rates favorable, least "election'' dramatic departure sees heirs testator left, but, rather, minus permitted §2053(a) (specifying deductions). 102 unjustified "shrinking'' so. concede unfairness occur readjust guard doing Those distinguish "expenditures essential "incurred heirs, legatees, devisees.'' expenses;'' Deducting category advantage. disadvantage somehow shrinks, disappears. 103 insistence poses serious problem. Payment $100,000, future, earning meantime. —(Assuming rate $91,000, $100,000.) Nonetheless, practice simplifying assumption discount calculations sufficiently large warrant authorizing them. Or discounted. defend way, prove reasonable. interpretations "implement mandate.'' 450, (1967); 488, 1312-1313, Regardless, us. 104 although O'CONNOR written, issue-almost income-is insignificant hence immaterial; concession below. 105 syllabus prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 499. determination pari materia, (1929), unhelpful. holds assets, satisfied

Classification Label: 11