Brief Fact Summary. Leon Holtz created a revocable trust that paid income to him for life as much as the principal trustee believed was necessary for his welfare, comfort, and support, or for his hospitalization or other emergency needs. Upon his death, the income was to be paid to his wife in the amount that the principal trustee believed was necessary for her welfare, comfort and support, or for her hospitalization or other emergency needs. The court determines whether the trust is subject to a gift tax.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A gift to a trust is not subject to a gift tax if the settlor abandons sufficient dominion and control over the property to make the gift consummate. A settlor does not abandon sufficient dominion and control over the property if he may not be compelled by a court to comply with an external standard in invading the trust corpus.
Issue. Where a trustee’s power to invade is unlimited, whether the exercise of the trustee’s discretion may be governed by an external standard which the court could apply in a compelling compliance within the conditions of the trust agreement?
Held. Yes. The gift of corpus was incomplete and the gift is not subject to a gift tax because it was entirely possible that the entire corpus might be distributed during the settlor’s lifetime, and no one other than the settlor would receive any portion thereof. The trustee had unfettered discretion to use all of the trust corpus for the settlor.
It is well established in this Court that the parol evidence rule cannot be invoked by a third party, not a party to the written instrument involved and, furthermore, one of the exceptions to the parol evidence rule is that parol evidence may be received not to contradict or vary terms of the written contract but to explain how it is to be carried out.View Full Point of Law