Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

11 T.C. 314

Hinds v. Commissioner

United States Tax Court

Decided September 22, 1948

United States Tax Court · decided 1948-09-22

1. On December 31, 1940, decedent and his wife, who were domiciled in Texas, transferred certain community property which they owned to a… Held: the transfer was not made in contemplation of death; held, further, the laws of Texas determined the ownership of the income of the trust and, under Texas law, one-half of the income of the trust belonged to the husband, notwithstanding it was payable to the wife, and one-half of the value of the property which decedent transferred…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decision will be entered under Rule 50 · Decided 1948-09-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently June 1990

2 federal appellate ·

40194819501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ARNOLD, /.,

¶1dissenting: In my opinion, by the use in the trust instrument of the language directing the trustee:

… to pay the net income irom the 1st day of January, 1941, together with any and all accumulations of income, to the said Minnie H. M. Hinds, during her life, in equal quarterly payments, as nearly as may be; and after the death of the said Minnie H. M. Hinds, and the said Marjorie Hamilton Hinds Cruse shall be living, to pay the said net income of the trust, together with any and all accumulations of income, to the said Marjorie Hamilton Hinds Cruse and John Hamilton Hinds, son of the Settlors, in equal shares, and in equal quarterly payments as nearly as may be; …

¶2decedent intended to and did thereby make the trust income the separate property of his wife during her life. That such was his intention is further borne out by the fact that he specifically provided in the trust instrument that it should be governed and construed by the laws of the State of New York. This, in my opinion, clearly shows he completely divested himself of all interest in the trust income under the community property laws of the State of Texas, and that the income of the trust property during the lifetime of the wife was her separate property.

Hill, J., agrees with this dissent.
/11/tc/314 · .json · Public domain