- 28 -
legal or equitable title to the additional sums made
available, and he himself played no role in the
decision to create the trust. We conclude that there
is too little in this record to support a determination
that * * * [the child] was the grantor of the trust in
this case.
As can be gleaned from the foregoing recitation, Kegel v.
State, supra, is both legally and factually distinguishable from
the case at bar. From a legal standpoint, that case was
concerned with a technical exegesis of a narrow statutory
definition having no particular analogue in the Federal estate
tax regime. Critically, the question of whether a person is the
creator or grantor of a trust is distinctly different from the
question of whether someone had a beneficial interest in a trust
or other property. From a factual standpoint, the documentary
record in Kegel v. State, supra, showed extensive commingling of
interests and did not favor any particular separation or
allocation. In contrast and for the reasons cataloged above, the
record here does, on balance, weigh distinctly in favor of
decedent as the sole intended beneficiary of the annuities.
Arrington v. United States, supra, offers stronger
parallels. That case, too, dealt with settlement of a lawsuit
brought by parents individually and on behalf of a minor son who
had sustained injuries at birth. Id. at 145-146. The pertinent
settlement agreement provided, inter alia, for an annuity “‘for
the sole use and benefit of’” the child, guaranteed for 360
months, and payable to the child’s estate in the event of his
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011