Court Opinion

ID: 9419588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:50:20.759126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:19.200210
License: Public Domain

MR. Justice Douglas,
concurring.
The District Court found that this trust was “intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment at or after”- the death of the decedent. The Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. Certiorari was not granted on that question but only on the question whether the entire value of the corpus of the trust at the time of decedent’s death should be included in her gross estate. So in this case, as in Commissioner v. Estate of Field, post, p. 113, we are *113not faced with the question whether May v. Heiner, 281 U. S. 238, should survive Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U. S. 106. On the findings of the District Court, it is plain that the entire corpus must be included in decedent’s gross estate by virtue of § 302 (c) of the 1926 Act unless the value of the life estate must be deducted. The value of the life estate deducted in the Hallock case was the life estate in the settlor’s wife. It was excluded because it took effect in possession or enjoyment when the trust was created. The life estate which the decedent reserved to herself is obviously in a different category. It is not an “outstanding life estate” within the meaning of Treasury Regulations 80, Art. 17.
I would rest the decision there and reserve judgment on the other questions adverted to in the opinion of the Court.