Estelle Morris Trusts

51 T.C. 20 (1968)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Estelle Morris Trusts

United States Tax Court
51 T.C. 20 (1968)

JC

Facts

[Editor’s Note: This case can also be found under the title Morris Trusts v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.] In 1953, E.S. Morris and his wife, Etty Morris, executed ten separate written declarations of trust, purporting to create 20 separate trusts. Each declaration of trust established a separate trust, with B.R. Morris (the son of E.S. and Etty) and Estelle Morris (wife of B.R.) as beneficiaries. Each trust was irrevocable, was to accumulate trust income for the life of the beneficiaries, and, on their death, was to distribute principal and income to trusts for the beneficiaries’ surviving issue. The declaration of each trust indicated that it established two equal trusts for B.R. and Estelle and that each trust was not to be comingled, but a pair of trusts could be comanaged, with the stipulation that the principal and income would ultimately be evenly divided again. The trusts were separately funded by amounts from $500 to $1,875, drawn on the bank account of E.S. and Etty. Loans ranging from $1,500 to $5,625 were made to each trust by E.S. Ten separate bank accounts were opened in the name of E.S. Morris, trustee, and funds were deposited. Each of the declarations was treated as two trusts, one for B.R. and one for Estelle. Each trustee filed 20 separate income tax returns annually, reporting income for each trust, and the trusts had separate financial statements prepared by accountants. The government ultimately issued a notice of deficiency, finding that the ten B.R. Morris Trusts constituted one trust for federal income-tax purposes, and the ten Estelle Morris Trusts also functioned as one trust. The government later argued that the 20 trusts were, in fact, one single trust. The Morrises argued that the trusts were 20 separate trusts, disputed that tax avoidance was the motive for the trusts, and argued that even if tax avoidance were the goal, that goal was not relevant to the taxation of the trusts.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Featherston, J.)

Dissent (Raum, 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 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership