Estate of Vissering v. Commissioner
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
990 F.2d 578 (1993)
- Written by Christine Raino, JD
Facts
Norman H. Vissering was the life income beneficiary and co-trustee of a trust created by his mother. Upon Vissering’s death, the trust assets were to be distributed to, or for the benefit of, Vissering’s two children. Under the terms of the trust, Vissering had the power as a co-trustee to pay to himself as beneficiary “whatever amount or amounts of the principal of this Trust as may, in the discretion of the Trustees, be required for the continued comfort, support, maintenance, or education of said beneficiary.” Vissering retained these powers as trustee until death. After his death, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) sought to include the assets of the trust in his taxable estate. The IRS claimed that his powers as co-trustee constituted a general power of appointment over the trust assets as defined under I.R.C. § 2041. Relying on language of the trust that the Tax Court interpreted as permitting Vissering to distribute principal to himself for his “comfort,” the Tax Court held that this constituted a power of appointment that was not subject to an ascertainable standard enforceable by a court. Vissering’s estate appealed the Tax Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Logan, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 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.
