Morrill v. United States

228 F. Supp. 734 (1964)

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

Morrill v. United States

United States District Court for the District of Maine
228 F. Supp. 734 (1964)

JC

Facts

George B. Morrill Jr. (plaintiff) established four trusts for the benefit of his four minor children. A corporate trustee directed each trust, and the income of the trust was to accumulate until the child reached 21, at which time it would be distributed to said child. Each trust agreement provided that the trustee could use trust income to pay for room, tuition, books, and travel to or from any private school, college, or other educational institution. During the years 1959 through 1961, the Morrill children attended Vassar, Connecticut College, Brown University, the Holderness School, and the Waynflete School. Morrill signed contracts agreeing that he was responsible for payment of tuition, room, board, and other expenses from Vassar and Connecticut College. However, Morrill had no written agreement or contract with the other three schools. Each school would send a bill to Morrill, who wrote a personal check covering all amounts other than room and tuition. Morrill would send that personal check to the trustee of the relevant trust and request that the trustee pay the room and tuition fees from the trust. The trustee would then send a check for the requested amount to the school with the check from Morrill. Morrill and his wife did not include any of the income from the trusts on their federal income tax returns for 1959 through 1961. After an audit, the government (defendant) found deficiencies in the amounts of $1,736.75, $2,344.50, and $3,064.63 for those years. The government argued that the trust income had been paid to satisfy Morrill’s legal obligations and thus should be taxable as income to him. Morrill and his wife paid the amounts sought and filed this suit for a refund. Morrill argued that he was, at most, secondarily liable to guarantee payment of the school bills in question and that the payments by the trustee extinguished Morrill’s liability.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Gignoux, 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