167 F.2d 468 | 5th Cir. | 1948
Lead Opinion
When this case was last here,
The decree appealed from follows the mandate to make a new judgment “in accordance with this opinion.” It is affirmed.
United States v. Dallas Nat. Bank, 5 Cir., 164 F.2d 489.
United States v. Dallas Nat. Bank, 152 F.2d 582, 583.
Concurrence Opinion
(specially concurring) .
In many states, including Texas, the validity of spendthrift trusts is upheld.
The taxpayer is the equitable owner for life of an undivided interest in Texas realty, which under local law is not subject to seizure or sale for ordinary debts incurred by the taxpayer; but this does not mean that testamentary restraints against alienation should prevail against the fastening of a lien for federal income taxes on the taxpayer’s equitable interest in the trust estate. We are, in fact, holding the contrary in this case.
Homestead-exemption statutes of a state must give way to the fixation and enforcement of a federal lien for income taxes.
The lien sought to be enforced in this case has attached to the taxpayer’s equitable interest in the corpus of the trust estate, notwithstanding the testamentary provisions against its alienation, seizure, and sale. That is the effect of our decision.
42 Tex.Jur., Sec. 92, p. 705; 54 Am. Jur., p. 120, et seq.; 65 C.J., p. 238, et seq.
54 Am.Jur., p. 129, note 14; 65 C.J., p. 238, note 97.
United States v. Dallas Nat. Bank, 5 Cir., 164 F.2d 489.
Shambaugh v. Scofield, 5 Cir., 132 F.2d 345.
Matter of Rosenberg, 269 N.Y. 247, 199 N.E. 206, 105 A.L.R. 1238; An article in Harvard Law Review, entitled “Reaching the Interest of the Beneficiary of a Spendthrift Trust,” Vol. 43, pp. 63, 68. Cf. Glass City Bank v. United States, 326 U.S. 265, 66 S.Ct. 108.