United States v. Estate of Grace
United States Supreme Court
395 U.S. 316, 89 S. Ct. 1730, 23 L. Ed. 2d 332 (1969)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Joseph Grace was wealthy when he married Janet Grace. Over the years, Joseph transferred assets into Janet’s name including a family estate, although he retained control over the assets and the family business. In 1931 Joseph created a trust for Janet for life. If another trustee agreed, Janet could invade principal, and she could direct distribution upon her death. Two weeks later, Janet executed a virtually identical trust for Joseph at his request, containing the assets in her name. Both trusts were prepared under a plan Joseph devised to avoid a new gift tax, and he chose which assets each trust included. The trust for Janet terminated when she died in 1937. Her estate included about half the trust’s value after other tax compromises. Joseph died in 1950. His estate-tax return did not include the trust for him in his estate. The tax commissioner found the two trusts reciprocal, included the trust in Joseph’s estate, and assessed a $363,500 deficiency. Joseph’s estate (defendant) paid the deficiency under protest, arguing the reciprocal-trusts doctrine did not apply. The trial court found the trusts were part of a pattern of family giving, not reciprocal trusts. Noting disagreement among appellate courts over an important estate-tax issue, the Supreme Court granted review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Marshall, J.)
Dissent (Douglas, 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. 46,500 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.
