W. Clarke Swanson, Jr., 1950 Trust

33 T.C.M. (CCH) 296 (1974)

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

W. Clarke Swanson, Jr., 1950 Trust

United States Tax Court
33 T.C.M. (CCH) 296 (1974)

JC

Facts

[Editor’s Note: This case can also be found under the title “Swanson v. Commissioner.”] Swanco Trust Company (plaintiff) brought a suit in regard to the W. Clarke Swanson, Jr., 1950 trust. In December 1950, Caroline Swanson transferred stock to W. Clarke Swanson as trustee to begin trusts for W. Clarke Swanson Jr., Gerock H. Swanson, and Carol Ann Swanson. The stock was valued at $3,000 for each trust at that time. W. Clarke later transferred stock that he owned to the three trusts, worth slightly over $30,000 for each trust. W. Clarke contributed 91 percent of the value of each trust. The trusts were codified in 1955, with W. Clarke serving as trustee of each irrevocable trust. Each trust indicated that the trusts were subject to amendment or interpretation by the trust maker, but that such amendment could not vest any right to property, income, or corpus in the maker himself. In fact, W. Clarke subsequently issued a pair of interpretations in regard to the trustee’s right to dispense money, one allowing the trustee full discretion on whether payments were to be made during minority or majority of the beneficiary and one giving the trustee authority to borrow money for the trusts. In between, W. Clarke resigned as trustee and executed an amendment appointing a successor trustee. At issue in this matter is the ownership of the respective trusts. The Internal Revenue Code provided that a grantor must be construed as the owner of any part of a trust in which that person has the beneficial enjoyment of the corpus or income of the trust, subject to the powers allowed by the trust instrument. Although W. Clarke was prohibited from giving himself any property or money from the trust, he did maintain the power to amend the trusts. The issue then was whether his control over the trusts equated to ownership, and if so, how much of the trusts did he own?

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Wiles, 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