Day v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. Subsequent to the enactment of the Revenue Act of 1926 the decedent executed five certain trust indentures, reserving to himself the power to alter, amend, or revoke, with the concurrence of the beneficiary, the trusts therein contained.
Read the full summary
1. Subsequent to the enactment of the Revenue Act of 1926 the decedent executed five certain trust indentures, reserving to himself the power to alter, amend, or revoke, with the concurrence of the beneficiary, the trusts therein contained. Held, such power remained in the decedent until his death and the value of the property transferred, at the time of his death, is includable in the decedent's gross estate under the provisions of section 302(d) of the Revenue Act of 1926. Held, further, that the power to alter, revoke, or change the trusts was not exhausted with respect to two of the…
1Opinion of the Court
*18OPINION.
Matthews :
The principal issue for determination is whether the respondent erred in including in the decedent’s gross estate the value of the property covered by the five trusts created by the decedent during his lifetime. It will be observed that all of these trusts were created subsequent to the enactment of the Revenue Act of 1926, the statute here applicable, so that no question of unconstitutional retro-activity arises. Cf. Nichols v. Coolidge, 274 U. S. 531; Helvering v. Helmholz, 296 U. S. 93. None of the trusts was created in contem*19plation of death and each contained a…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Nichols v. CoolidgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Helvering v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Helvering v. HelmholzSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
3Cited by1 opinion
- Day v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1936