This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The Government (D) claimed that Orvis (P) and his wife had each set up separate life estates in trust by mutual agreement so that the wife's trust was a sham to avoid taxation. The case was tried by the judge. Witnesses for P testified that P had not acted with his wife's intentions in mind nor she with his. The trusts were set up at about the same time and with the same attorney. There was nothing secret about the arrangements. The trial judge found that the trusts were set up independently and were not a sham to avoid taxation. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.