Court Opinion

ID: 9418792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:39:35.692377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:10.389897
License: Public Domain

Me. Chief Justice Hughes,
dissenting.
I agree with the opinion of the Court in Nos. 75, 76 and 78. I am unable to agree with the opinion in No. 77. In that case, the testator created a trust for the benefit of his wife, children, and grandchildren. The income of the trust, by its express terms, was to be paid to his wife to the extent of $50,000 a year. While the payment of this annual amount was also Charged on the principal of the estate, resort could not be had to the principal if the income of the trust was sufficient. Johnston’s Estate, 264 Pa. 71, 76; 107 Atl. 335. The widow-was in every sense of the word a beneficiary of the trust, and the amounts paid to her out' of the income of the trust were paid to her as a beneficiary. These amounts were thus deductible by the trustees, under the express provision of § 219 (b) (2) of thé Revenue Act of 1924, from the gross income of the trust. As to this, I think it makes no difference whether or not the widow was taxable on the amount of the income she received. The decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals should be affirmed.