Van Wart v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue/Opinion of the Court

by James Clark McReynolds

United States Supreme Court

295 U.S. 112

Van Wart  v.  Commissioner of Internal Revenue

 Argued: Nov. 13, 1934. --- Decided: April 29, 1935

The sole question for determination is whether an attorney's fee paid by the guardian for conducting litigation to secure income for his ward was a business expense within section 214(a)(1), Revenue Act 1924 (26 USCA § 955(a)(1) and therefore deductible from the minor's gross income. The facts, as stated by the court below (C.C.A.) 69 F.(2d) 299, were these:

'Catherine L. Van Wart, a minor, was the beneficiary of a trust created by the will of her grandfather, Jenkins Jones, deceased. Dr. Roy M. Van Wart, Catherine's father, with whom she resided in Orleans parish, La., after being confirmed by order of the district court for that parish in accordance with the laws of Louisiana as her natural tutor or guardian, and after duly qualifying as such, demanded of the trustees under the will that they pay over to him the accrued income of the trust created in favor of his ward. The trustees, claiming, among other things, the right to keep possession of the accumulations of such income until Catherine should become of age, when they conceded she would be entitled to the corpus as well as all accumulated income, declined to comply with that demand. Thereupon suit was brought in the name of the minor, by her father as next friend, in the federal court for the district in West Virginia in which the testator was residing at the time of his death, against the trustees to compel distribution of the income involved in accordance with the guardian's previous demand. That suit finally was decided in favor of the plaintiff, it being held that the guardian was entitled to receive from the trustees his ward's accumulated income and future income as it annually accrued. Van Wart v. Jones (C.C.A.) 295 F. 287. Accordingly, in 1924 the trustees paid over to Dr. Van Wart as guardian the accumulated income of $160,000 and current income of $80,000; and Dr. Van Wart, acting as guardian and by authority of the court of his appointment, paid out of the funds so received by him a fee of $30,000 to the attorneys who brought the suit for their services in the litigation. In the income tax return for 1924, which was filed by the guardian on behalf of his ward, a deduction of the attorneys' fee was claimed.'

Pertinent provisions of the Revenue Act of 1924 are in the margin.

The Board of Tax Appeals held the attorney's fee was deductible as an ordinary and necessary expense in carrying on business. Section 214(a)(1), 26 USCA § 955(a)(1). The Commissioner claimed it was personal expense of the minor taxpayer, excluded from deduction by section 215(a)(1), 26 USCA § 956(a)(1), and the court below upheld this view. It declined to follow Commissioner v. Wurts-Dundas, Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 54 F.(2d) 515. Because of this conflict the cause is here.

We agree with the conclusion that the ward, not the guardian, was the taxpayer. The return was filed by him in her behalf; the taxable income was hers, not his. The attorney's fee arose out of litigation conducted in the name of the ward. It was paid for her benefit out of her income.

In freuler v. Helvering, 291 U.S. 35, 44, 54 S.Ct. 308, 311, 78 L.Ed. 634, we said: 'The whole of a minor's income received by his guardian is taxable to the minor irrespective of its accumulation in the guardian's hands, distribution to the minor or payment for his support or education. * * * Either the minor or his guardian must make the return, but in either case it embraces all the income and is the minor's individual return, not that of the guardian or the trust.'

The ward was not engaged in any business. So far as appears, the same thing is true of the guardian. See Kornhauser v. United States, 276 U.S. 145, 48 S.Ct. 219, 72 L.Ed. 505; Commissioner v. Field (C.C.A.) 42 F.(2d) 820; Hutchings v. Burnet, 61 App.D.C. 109, 58 F.(2d) 514; Walker v. Commissioner (C.C.A.) 63 F.(2d) 351; Lindley v. Commissioner (C.C.A.) 63 F.(2d) 807. Moreover, guardianship is not recognized by the statute as a taxable entity.

The judgment under review must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Notes