May v. Heiner, 281 U.S. 238 (1930)

281 U.S.
238
50 S.Ct. 286
74 L.Ed. 826
MAY et al.
v.
HEINER, Collector of Internal Revenue.
No. 311.
Argued March 7, 1930.
Decided April 14, 1930.
Mr. Charles H. Sachs, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioners.

The Attorney General and Mr. G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for
respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 239-241 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
By a written instrument dated October 1, 1917, Pauline May, wife of Barney

May, 'transferred, set over and assigned' to him and others, as trustees (with
power to change the investments), certain described securities-bonds, notes,
corporate stocks, and money-in trust, to collect the income therefrom, and after
discharging taxes, expenses, etc., to pay the balance 'to Barney May during his
lifetime, and after his decease, to Pauline May during her lifetime, and after her
decease, all the property in said Trust, in whatever form or shape it may be,
shall, after the expenses of the Trust have been deducted or paid, be distributed
equally among' her four children, their distributees, or appointees.
Mrs. May died March 25, 1920. Thereafter the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, purporting to proceed under authority of the Revenue Act of 1918, tit.
4, 40 Stat. 1057, 1096, 1097, demanded that her executors pay additional taxes
reckoned upon the value of the property held under the above-described trust
instrument. Having paid the required sum, the executors-petitioners here-asked
that it be refunded. By order of February 20, 1924, the Commissioner denied
their request. In support of this action he said:
'This trust was included in decedent's gross estate on final audit and review on
the ground that it was intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment at or
after death. In this case the principal of the trust fund could not take effect in
possession until the death of the decedent. According to the provisions of the
trust agreement, if the decedent's husband died before her, the income was to be
paid to her until her death. The gift of the principal, therefore, could not take
effect during the decedent's lifetime. This case comes literally within the terms
of the statute, and it has been held by a number of courts in different States that
such a transfer as this is taxable, these cases being decided under statutes using
the same language as is contained in the Federal Estate Tax Law.'
Seeking to enforce their claim the executors sued the collector in the District
Court, Western District of Pennsylvania; judgment in his favor was affirmed by
the Circuit Court of Appeals. The matter is here upon certiorari.
The record fails clearly to disclose whether or no Mrs. May survived her
husband. Apparently she did not. But this is not of special importance, since the
refund should have been allowed in either event.
The transfer of October 1, 1917, was not made in contemplation of death within
the legal significance of those words. It was not testamentary in character and
was beyond recall by the decedent. At the death of Mrs. May no interest in the
property held under the trust deed passed from her to the living; title thereto had
been definitely fixed by the trust deed. The interest therein which she possessed
immediately prior to her death was obliterated by that event.
Section 401, Revenue Act of 1918 (40 Stat. 1096), lays a charge 'upon the
transfer of the net estate of every decedent dying after the passage of this Act,'
and section 402 directs that 'the value of the gross estate of the decedent shall
be determined by including the value at the time of his death of all property,
real or personal, tangible or intangible, wherever situated * * * (c) To the extent
of any interest therein of which the decedent has at any time made a transfer, or
with respect to which he has at any time created a trust, in contemplation of or
intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment at or after his death. * * *'
The statute imposes 'an excise upon the transfer of an estate upon death of the
owner.' Y. M. C. A. v. Davis, 264 U. S. 47, 50, 44 S. Ct. 291, 292, 68 L. Ed.
558; Nichols v. Coolidge, 274 U. S. 531, 537, 47 S. Ct. 710, 71 L. Ed. 1184, 52
A. L. R. 1081.
In Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 278 U. S. 339, 347, 348, 49 S. Ct. 123, 125,
73 L. Ed. 410, the estate tax prescribed by the Revenue Act of 1918, 402(c),
and carried into the Act of 1921, 42 Stat. 278, as section 402(c) thereof, was
under consideration. This court said:
10
'In its plan and scope the tax is one imposed on transfers at death or made in
contemplation of death and is measured by the value at death of the interest
which is transferred. * * * One may freely give his property to another by
absolute gift without subjecting himself or his estate to a tax, but we are asked
to say that this statute means that he may not make a gift inter vivos, equally
absolute and complete, without subjecting it to a tax if the gift takes the form of
a life estate in one with remainder over to another at or after the donor's death.
It would require plain and compelling language to justify so incongruous a
result and we think it is wanting in the present statute. * * *
11
'In the light of the general purpose of the statute and the language of section
401 explicitly imposing the tax on net estates of decedents, we think it at least
doubtful whether the trusts or interests in a trust intended to be reached by the
phrase in section 402(c) 'to take effect in possession or enjoyment at or after his
death,' include any others than those passing from the possession, enjoyment or
control of the donor at his death and so taxable as transfers at death under
section 401. That doubt must be resolved in favor of the taxpayer. * * *'
12
The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is erroneous and must be

reversed. The cause will be remanded to the District Court for further
proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
13
Reversed.

May v. Heiner, 281 U.S. 238 (1930)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

May v. Heiner, 281 U.S. 238 (1930)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

May v. Heiner, 281 U.S. 238 (1930)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

281 U.S.

Mr. Charles H. Sachs, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioners.

By a written instrument dated October 1, 1917, Pauline May, wife of Barney

The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is erroneous and must be

You might also like