Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

United States v. Mason, Administrator, Et Al.

• 1972 • 412 U.S. 391 • Burger Court
In the case of United States v. Mason, Administrator, et al., 1972, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving federal estate tax law. The decedent had created an irrevocable trust for his wife and children during his lifetime but retained some control over it by reserving the right to change beneficiaries among a limited class of people (his descendants). After he died, the IRS included this trust in his taxable estate under Section 2036(a)(2) of Internal Revenue Code because they argued...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1972
Docket: 72-654
412 U.S. 391
93 S. Ct. 2202
37 L. Ed. 2d 22
1973 U.S. LEXIS 186
Argued: Apr 18, 1973

United States v. Mason, Administrator, Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of United States v. Mason, Administrator, et al., 1972, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving federal estate tax law. The decedent had created an irrevocable trust for his wife and children during his lifetime but retained some control over it by reserving the right to change beneficiaries among a limited class of people (his descendants). After he died, the IRS included this trust in his taxable estate under Section 2036(a)(2) of Internal Revenue Code because they argued that he kept "strings attached" to these assets even after transferring them into an irrevocable trust. However, the executor of his estate disagreed with this interpretation and sued for a refund. The Supreme Court sided with the executor and held that retaining such power does not necessarily mean those assets should be included in one's gross estate for tax purposes unless there is evidence showing that such power was used or could have been used in conjunction with others to shift benefits among parties involved. This decision clarified how certain aspects of federal taxation laws apply when dealing with trusts where grantors retain some level of control.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Mason, Administrator, et al., Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision to allow a tax deduction for theft losses suffered by a decedent prior to death was inconsistent with previous interpretations of relevant tax law. He contended that such deductions should only be permitted if they are related to property included in the gross estate and thus subject to taxation upon death. In this case, since the stolen assets were not part of the taxable estate at time of death due to their earlier theft, he believed there should be no corresponding deduction allowed against other assets in calculating estate taxes owed. Furthermore, Justice Douglas expressed concern about potential abuse and manipulation if such deductions were broadly permitted without clear legislative guidance or limitations.

Opinion written by Justice TMarshall
Decided: Jun 04, 1973
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms