- 10 - the transferee holds it in trust for a beneficiary creates a valid oral trust. Constructive delivery, such as by earmarking property or recording it in the name of the transferee, is also sufficient to comply with * * * [California Probate Code section 15207(b)]. Here, Phyllis essentially “delivered” the trust property to Julie when she named Julie as the successor owner. Moreover, Phyllis made an oral declaration to Julie instructing her to distribute the annuity to the children upon Phyllis’s death. Indeed, Julie immediately complied with Phyllis’s directive upon Phyllis’s death. Based on our conclusion that Julie received the distribution in trust for the benefit of the children, we hold that Julie did not receive the distribution in her personal capacity, and, therefore, the distribution is not income to her. See Healy v. Commissioner, 345 U.S. 278, 282 (1953) (“[R]eceipts by a trustee expressly for the benefit of another are not income to the trustee in his individual capacity, for he ‘has received nothing * * * for his separate use and benefit’”.), quoting Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 211 (1920). We now turn to whether any part of the distribution constitutes income to Mark. For tax purposes, amounts required to be distributed to a beneficiary from a trust corpus are includable in the gross income of the beneficiary. Sec. 662(a). Indeed, the beneficiaries of the oral trust were the three children. As one of those beneficiaries, Mark received in hisPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011