In the case of United States v. Hopkins, Special Administrator (1975), the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over estate taxes. The decedent had established an irrevocable trust for his wife and children in 1948, with himself as trustee. He later died in 1969 without having made any changes to this arrangement. The IRS claimed that because he retained control over the trust's assets during his lifetime, they should be included in his gross estate for tax purposes under Section 2036(a) of Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The executor argued that since there was no express provision allowing him to alter or amend the terms after its creation, it shouldn't be considered part of his taxable estate upon death. However, both lower courts sided with government stating that despite not being able to change beneficiaries or distribution amounts directly; retaining power as trustee gave him indirect control which is enough under section 2036(a). The Supreme Court affirmed these decisions unanimously holding that even though he couldn’t modify terms directly but by virtue of being a sole trustee till death allowed him sufficient powers making those assets includible within gross estate.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Hopkins, Special Administrator, 1975, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a tax deduction for estate taxes paid on income in respect of a decedent (IRD) was inconsistent with both legislative intent and prior court rulings. The dissent pointed out that Congress had specifically chosen not to provide such deductions when they enacted Section 691(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. Furthermore, previous Supreme Court decisions had held that IRD should be treated as part of an estate for tax purposes rather than as separate income. Therefore, allowing an additional deduction would result in double taxation benefits which were neither intended nor provided by law. The dissent also criticized the majority's reliance on state law definitions to interpret federal tax statutes and suggested this approach could lead to inconsistencies across different jurisdictions.