Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,400+ case briefs...

Estate of Cristofani v. Commissioner

United States Tax Court
97 T.C. 74 (1991)


On June 12, 1984, Maria Cristofani executed an irrevocable trust under which her children, Frank Cristofani and Lillian Dawson, and her five minor grandchildren had the right to make a withdrawal within fifteen days after a contribution to the trust had been made. The maximum amount that each could withdraw was equal to the amount of the gift tax exclusion, $10,000. The trust paid all of the income to Frank and Lillian and the trust assets were to be distributed to Frank and Lillian upon Maria’s death unless they predeceased her, in which case their children would receive their respective share. Maria made two transfers to the trust – one in 1984 and one in 1985 – of an undivided thirty-three percent interest in property, each valued at $70,000. Frank and Lillian, as trustees, were obligated to inform the trust beneficiaries of the contributions to the trust. There was no agreement that between Maria and her children that her grandchildren would not exercise their withdrawal rights, however none of her grandchildren exercised these rights following the contributions in either 1984 or 1985. After Maria’s death, her estate (plaintiff) claimed seven annual gift tax exclusions under § 2503(b) for each of the transfers in 1984 and 1985. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner) (defendant) only allowed the exclusions for Frank and Lillian and did not allow $50,000 in exclusions for each of the two years that Maria’s grandchildren did not exercise their withdrawal rights. The Commissioner argued that the grandchildren did not receive present interests in property and therefore the exclusion under § 2503(b) did not apply. The parties stipulated that Maria’s grandchildren had the same rights to withdraw trust property as Maria’s children but the Commissioner claimed that the fact that Maria’s grandchildren had only a contingent remainder interest rather than a vested interest in the trust prevented application of the rule in Crummey v. Commissioner.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Ruwe, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 373,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,400 briefs, keyed to 223 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial