Self v. United States
United States Court of Claims
142 F. Supp. 939 (1956)

- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
James Self (plaintiff) was gifted Greenwood Mills stock from his father in trust in 1948, with the income to be paid to Self for his life. The remainder was to be paid to his descendants or to a charitable foundation if he had no descendants. Self could transfer the stock to or among his descendants. Self’s father paid gift tax on the entire value of the property in 1948. In 1951, Self executed a pair of deeds for 100 shares of Greenwood Mills stock each to his son and daughter in trust, pursuant to the terms of the 1948 trust from his father. Self paid gift tax on the right to receive the income for life on the 200 shares of Greenwood Mills stock—a total value paid of $918.23. He then filed a claim for a refund, and when the government did not take action, he filed suit. The government argued (1) that while Self’s exercise of a limited or special power of appointment was not subject to gift tax, that principle applied only to the trust corpus, (2) that the transfer of the trust income was not made pursuant to such a power, and (3) that gift tax accordingly applied. Self argued that because of the very nature of the stock, he could not transfer the shares of stock without also transferring the right to income from the stock. As he was acting pursuant to the special power of appointment from the original 1948 trust, Self posited that he was entitled to a refund of the 1951 gift tax paid on the right to income from the stock.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Littleton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.