Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PDF Rini
PDF Rini
18-457
================================================================
In The
Supreme Court of the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner,
v.
Respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN D. FELDMAN
Counsel of Record
THOMAS H. SEGARS
SCOTTIE FORBES LEE
PREETHA SURESH RINI
ELLIS & WINTERS LLP
4131 Parklake Avenue, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27612
(919) 865-7005
[email protected]
================================================================
COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964
WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS
CURIAE ............................................................ 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................. 2
ARGUMENT ........................................................ 3
I. The history of trusts shows that the trust
was developed to preserve property for a
beneficiary ................................................. 3
A. The predecessor to the modern trust—
called a “use”—facilitated property
transfers in the face of feudal
restrictions........................................... 3
B. The trust developed from the “use” and
had the same core function of
preserving property for a beneficiary .... 5
II. Key attributes of modern trusts confirm
that a beneficiary is the central figure in
the trust relationship ................................ 7
A. A trust cannot exist without a
beneficiary ............................................ 7
B. Only the trust beneficiary holds a
beneficial property interest in the
trust corpus ......................................... 9
C. A trustee’s obligation is to advance the
beneficiary’s interests ......................... 12
D. A trust is not a separate legal entity, but a
relationship created for a beneficiary ...... 14
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
Page
III. The contacts that a trust’s beneficiary
makes with a state cannot be disregarded
in determining jurisdiction to tax income
on a trust corpus ........................................ 16
A. The holding below misapplies this
Court’s instruction in Quill and
overlooks important characteristics of
trusts ................................................... 17
B. The constituents of a trust may make
“contact” with states ............................ 19
C. The contacts made by the trust’s
beneficiary are the most significant
for the purpose of establishing taxing
jurisdiction .......................................... 20
CONCLUSION..................................................... 24
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
CASES
Americold Realty Tr. v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
136 S. Ct. 1012 (2016) ................................. 14, 15, 16
Anderson v. Wilson,
289 U.S. 20 (1933) ...................................................14
Blair v. Comm’r,
300 U.S. 5 (1937) ........................................... 9, 10, 21
Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Tr.
v. N.C. Dep’t of Revenue,
814 S.E.2d 43 (N.C. 2018) .......................................17
Meinhard v. Salmon,
164 N.E. 545 (N.Y. 1928) .........................................13
Miller Bros. v. Maryland,
347 U.S. 340 (1954) ........................................... 17, 20
Navarro Sav. Ass’n v. Lee,
446 U.S. 458 (1980) ........................................... 22, 23
NLRB v. Amax Coal Co.,
453 U.S. 322 (1981) ........................................... 12, 13
Pennsylvania v. Stewart,
12 A.2d 444 (Pa. 1940),
aff ’d, 312 U.S. 649 (1941) ..........................................9
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota,
504 U.S. 298 (1992) ................................. 17, 18, 20, 23
South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.,
138 S. Ct. 2080 (2018) ....................................... 19, 20
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
Page
Stone v. White,
301 U.S. 532 (1937) ........................................... 10, 21
Walden v. Fiore,
571 U.S. 277 (2014) .................................................18
STATUTES
Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(1)(E) ............................................23
Statute of Wills 1540, 32 Hen. 8 c. 1 (Eng.) .................4
Unif. Trust Code § 105(b)(3) .......................................13
Unif. Trust Code § 107 cmt.........................................19
Unif. Trust Code § 202 ................................................14
Unif. Trust Code § 402 ..................................................8
Unif. Trust Code § 704 ..................................................8
Unif. Trust Code § 802 ................................................12
Unif. Trust Code § 814(a) ...........................................13
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Gregory S. Alexander, The Dead Hand and the
Law of Trusts in the Nineteenth Century, 37
Stan. L. Rev. 1189 (1985) ..........................................6
76 Am. Jur. 2d Trusts (2016) .............................. passim
Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) .......................5
George Gleason Bogert & George Taylor Bogert,
The Law of Trusts and Trustees (2d rev. ed.
1993) .................................................................. 12, 22
v
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
Page
Alan R. Bromberg & E. B. Fortson, Selection of a
Trustee; Tax and Other Considerations,
19 Sw. L.J. 523 (1965)................................................8
Ronald Chester, From Here to Eternity? Property
and the Dead Hand (2007)........................................6
90 C.J.S. Trusts (2010) ...................................... 8, 10, 11
Robert T. Danforth, Rethinking the Law of
Creditors’ Rights in Trusts, 53 Hastings L.J.
287 (2002) ................................................................15
Henry Hansmann & Ugo Mattei, Trust Law in
the United States. A Basic Study of Its
Special Contribution, 46 Am. J. Comp. L. Supp.
133 (1998) ................................................ 9, 11, 13, 22
Adam Hofri-Winogradow, The Demand for
Fiduciary Services: Evidence from the Market
in Private Donative Trusts, 68 Hastings L.J.
931 (2017) ................................................................21
John H. Langbein, The Contractarian Basis of
the Law of Trusts, 105 Yale L.J. 625 (1995) .... passim
Alan Newman et al., The Law of Trusts and
Trustees (3d ed. 2010)..............................................10
Howard L. Oleck, Historical Nature of Equity
Jurisprudence, 20 Fordham L. Rev. 23 (1951) ...... 5, 6
Francesco Parisi, Entropy in Property, 50 Am. J.
Comp. L. 595 (2002) ..................................................4
Restatement (Third) of Trusts (Am. Law Inst.
2003) .................................................. 8, 10, 13, 15, 18
vi
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
Page
W. D. Rollinson, Principles of the Law of
Succession to Intestate Property, 11 Notre
Dame L. Rev. 14 (1935) .............................................4
Kent D. Schenkel, Exposing the Hocus Pocus of
Trusts, 45 Akron L. Rev. 63 (2012) ............................6
Kent D. Schenkel, Trust Law and the Title-Split:
A Beneficial Perspective, 78 UMKC L. Rev. 182
(2009) ............................................................... passim
Jeffrey Schoenblum, Strange Bedfellows: The
Federal Constitution, Out-of-State Nongrantor
Accumulation Trusts, and the Complete
Avoidance of State Income Taxation, 67 Vand.
L. Rev. 1945 (2014) ............................................ 19, 20
Helene S. Shapo et al., The Law of Trusts and
Trustees (3d ed. 2012)................................................9
David T. Smith, The Statute of Uses: A Look at
Its Historical Evolution and Demise, 18 Case
W. Res. L. Rev. 40 (1966) ...........................................4
Samuel Williston, The Right to Follow Trust
Property When Confused with Other Property,
2 Harv. L. Rev. 28 (1888) .........................................15
1
STATEMENT OF INTEREST
OF AMICUS CURIAE1
Amici are law professors who have studied the his-
tory, purpose, and taxation of trusts. Amici teach
courses on the laws governing trusts and estates, tax-
ation, and property, and have published extensive
scholarship on the law of trusts. Amici submit this
brief to show that a beneficiary is and always has been
the central constituent of a trust. As a result, a benefi-
ciary’s residency in a taxing state necessarily creates a
significant relationship between the taxing state and
the trust income that is the object of the tax. Amici
urge the Court to weigh these points in reaching its
decision in this case—a decision likely to have long-
term consequences for the law on trusts.
John V. Orth is the William Rand Kenan Jr. Pro-
fessor of Law at the University of North Carolina
School of Law.
Kent D. Schenkel is a Professor of Law at New
England Law Boston.
Carla Spivack is the Oxford Research Professor at
the Oklahoma City University School of Law.
1
In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 37.6, amici state
that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part,
and that no person or entity, other than amici and their counsel,
made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation
and submission of this brief. All parties have filed letters granting
blanket consent to the filing of amicus briefs.
2
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The question presented in this appeal is whether
the Due Process Clause prohibits a state from taxing
the income of a trust based on a trust beneficiary’s in-
state residency. The Supreme Court of North Carolina
concluded that the Due Process Clause imposes this
prohibition. That conclusion, however, clashes with the
history, purpose, and established legal treatment of
trusts.
A beneficiary’s in-state residency is a uniquely rel-
evant factor in establishing taxing jurisdiction. A
trust’s three basic constituents—settlor, trustee, and
beneficiary—may make contact with different states.
Among those constituents, however, only a trust’s ben-
eficiary is entitled to trust income. It follows that
contacts with a state made by a trust’s beneficiary bear
the closest relationship to the object of income taxa-
tion: income from the trust corpus.
This brief begins with a discussion of the history
that led to the modern-day trust, focusing on the ben-
eficiary’s essential role in the trust relationship. It
then examines four key attributes of modern-day
trusts that confirm a beneficiary’s central and unique
role in a trust. The brief applies the history and key
attributes to the decision below, concluding that a
3
ARGUMENT
I. The history of trusts shows that the trust
was developed to preserve property for a
beneficiary.
The Supreme Court of North Carolina concluded
that the residency of a trust beneficiary is insufficient
to determine whether a taxing state’s contacts with the
trust satisfy the Due Process Clause. This conclusion,
however, overlooks the purpose of a trust. A trust is
created to benefit a trust beneficiary.
A look at the history of the law on trusts shows
that the arrangement has always existed for this pur-
pose. Amici urge the Court to consider this history in
assessing the role of a beneficiary’s residency in the
Court’s due-process analysis.
2
A “feoffee to uses” is “[a] person to whom land is conveyed
for the use of a third party.” Feoffee to uses, Black’s Law Diction-
ary (10th ed. 2014).
6
3
Amici acknowledge that some trust-law scholars believe
that a beneficiary’s interest is promissory, not proprietary. See,
e.g., Langbein, supra, at 644 (discussing this debate among trust-
law academics). That view, however, is defeated by the equitable
origins of the trust described above. See id. at 644–47.
10
4
A spendthrift clause contains language that protects the
beneficiary’s income and principal interests from the claims of the
beneficiary’s creditors. Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 58 cmt.
d(2). Aimed at protecting beneficiaries who spend in excess of in-
come, a spendthrift clause bars the beneficiary from pledging un-
distributed trust assets as security for a loan or other debts
during the term of the trust.
11
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the
Supreme Court of North Carolina should be reversed.
Respectfully submitted,
STEPHEN D. FELDMAN
Counsel of Record
THOMAS H. SEGARS
SCOTTIE FORBES LEE
PREETHA SURESH RINI
ELLIS & WINTERS LLP
4131 Parklake Avenue, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27612
(919) 865-7005
[email protected]