Crummey v. C.I.R.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
397 F.2d 82 (1968)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
In 1962 the Crummeys created a trust for their four children. A demand provision allowed the children to demand distributions after funds were transferred into the trust each year until December 31. If a child was still a minor or otherwise lacked capacity, a guardian could make the demand on the child’s behalf. At the time, the federal gift-tax annual exclusion was $3,000. On December 15, 1962, the Crummeys deposited $49,550 into the trust. On December 19, 1963, the Crummeys deposited $12,797.81. Each year the Crummeys each claimed four $3,000 exemptions, totaling $24,000. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the Commissioner) (defendant) allowed only $3,000 for each parent in 1962 when only one child was over 21, and only $6,000 each in 1963 when two children were over 21. None of the children had made a demand against the trust funds. The Crummeys supported their children, and the minor children lived at home. No legal guardian had been appointed. The Crummeys petitioned to allow the remaining exemptions for the gifts to the children under 21. The United States Tax Court allowed an additional $3,000 each for 1962 because one child was 18 and had some limited rights under California law, but it denied exemptions for the gifts to children under 18. The Crummeys and the Commissioner cross-appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Byrne, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
