Court Opinion

ID: 9419590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:50:20.984182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:19.201983
License: Public Domain

Me. Justice Douglas,
concurring.
If the trust gave a life estate to the decedent and the remainder to his children, § 302 (c) of the 1926 Act would not require the payment of a tax under the rule of May v. Heiner, 281 U. S. 238; Burnet v. Northern Trust Co., 283 U. S. 782; McCormick v. Burnet, 283 U. S. 784; and Hassett v. Welch, 303 U. S. 303. The theory of May v. Heiner was that under those circumstances no interest in the property passed from the grantor to the remainder-man on the grantor’s death, since the title of the remain-derman had been definitely fixed by the trust deed. We need not determine whether the rule of May v. Heiner should survive Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U. S. 106. See Paul, Federal Estate & Gift Taxation (1942) § 7.15. For *117in this case the grantor retained the right to reduce or cancel by will or written instrument the interests of the children; and the corpus would have been returned to the grantor if he survived his nieces. Hence it seems plain that the gifts over would take effect in possession or enjoyment only at or after the death of the grantor.