Court Opinion

ID: 9651713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:32:15.459568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:37.841645
License: Public Domain

BINGHAM, Circuit Judge
(concurring). If the Costilla Trust was an “association,” either under the Massachusetts statute (Gen. *779Laws Mass. c. 182, § 6), or according to the ordinary meaning of the term, I agree with the conclusion reached in the opinion of the court. But the Costilla Trust was a strict trust, and the Massachusetts court, in construing its Statute, has held that a strict trust is not an “association,” within the meaning of chapter 182, § 6, supra (Bouchard v. First People’s Trust, 253 Mass. 351, 148 N. E. 895), aud, being a strict trust, it clearly was not an association according to the ordinary meaning of the term. Such being the case, its certificates were not subject to the tax in question.
The trusts directly under consideration in Hecht v. Malley, 265 U. S. 144, 161, 44 S. Ct. 462, 468 (68 L. Ed. 949), were only such as are denominated “ ‘associations’ by the Massachusetts statutes, and subject to duties and liabilities as such.” Hecht v. Malley, 265 U. S. at page 161, 44 S. Ct. 468, supra. There is dictum in the opinion in the Hecht Case; based on the assumption that, a strict trust is an association within the meaning of the Massachusetts statutes, that such a trust is an association taxable under the federal statutes. But this is a mistaken assumption. Bouchard v. First People’s Trust, 253 Mass. 351, 148 N. E. 895.