The bixby liquidating trust michael vartan who is he dating
If, in fact, sufficient control over the specific property be reserved, the courts will look to the realities of ownership and power over the res.
This primary instrument and relationship then concededly was for a legitimate business purpose.
Thereupon, they set aside their former decision, rationalized an explanation of the latest utterance of the highest court of California and smugly restored their former order. Even if it were valid, the question of whether the relationship was used to hold income for future distribution under § 167 was cardinal.
The Tax Court should never have spoken upon a highly debatable question of local law. The holdings of the California courts could only have been properly used by the Tax Court to bolster up their decision (1) if this particular instrument itself had been submitted by petitioners to the local courts and had been specifically upheld. Or (2) if, by well established doctrine, the particular relationship had been passed upon and become a matter of established law, such as a partnership or a marital community.
Otherwise, a manifest injustice might be accomplished.
Executed long before the events here in controversy, the instrument in question was drawn with great care and meticulousness.
III of the trust instrument vest at death such an interest in the corpus as heirs generally take under California law. IV fixes the termination of the trust upon the death of the last survivor of 21 named individuals. Corpus could not pass at death to the heirs-at-law generally as the Supreme Court of California in the Bixby case said would be necessary to give trustors such rights of control as would make them in effect owners of the corpus.
In each of these pronouncements, that court examined with meticulous insistence a collateral question of local California law which they are incompetent to decide. And where the trustor creates a life estate in himself with a gift over to his heirs he ordinarily intends the same thing as if he had given the property to his estate; he does not intend to make a gift to any particular person but indicates only that upon his death the residue of the trust property shall be distributed according to the general laws governing succession, and he does not intend to create in any persons an interest which would prevent him from exercising control over the beneficial interest. "Under well recognized rules of construction of written instruments all provisions of a trust indenture must be given consideration in arriving at the intent of the parties thereto. "Whether remainder interests were created in the trustor's heirs-at-law is a matter of intent according to the California Supreme Court. In other words, the appointees take their interests subject to the terms of the trust agreement. As the trustors could not vest the unrestricted use, possession and control of the corpus in their heirs-at-law at death, their appointees, whether heirs-at-law or others, would be in no better position under California law.