Leopold v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
510 F.2d 617 (1975)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Hans G. M. de Schulthess created a trust for each of his two minor daughters and named himself as one of the two trustees for both trusts. Under each trust’s terms, the trustees were required to invest the principal and periodically pay enough income to provide for the daughter’ s support, education, maintenance, and general welfare, i.e., to maintain the lifestyle to which the daughter was accustomed. For any income above that baseline amount, the trustees could choose whether to pay it to the daughter at that time or to accumulate it and pay the total accumulated amount to the daughter when she turned 21. The trustees were also allowed to distribute any or all of the principal to each daughter at any time. Schulthess died while his daughters were still minors. The federal government (defendant) contended that because Schulthess had control over the trusts while he was alive, he still owned the property in the trusts at the time of his death, and his estate (plaintiff) owed taxes on the distribution of that property. The estate sued for a refund of the estate taxes imposed on the property in the trusts, and the district court granted the refund. The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Goodwin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 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.