Nell K. Ross, Individually and James G. Harris and Elizabeth Ross Harris, Independent of the Estate of James H. Ross, Deceased v. United States (1965)

For a detailed discussion of the legislative history of Section 2503(c) see Ross v. United States, 348 F.2d 577, 579-581 (5 Cir. 1965). 6 . “2. (a) The Trustee may distribute to, or expend for the benefit of [named beneficiary] until he attains the age of twenty-one (21) years, so much of the principal and the current or accumulated income therefrom, at such time or times and in such manner as the Trustee in its sole discretion shall determine.

We read the statutory language “may be expended” to mean “may be expended within the [reasonable, prudent and ordinary] limitations imposed on guardians by state law.” Id. at 579, 581 . *432 The trust agreement in this case does not establish a guardianship.

One opinion explicitly interpreted the “may be extended” language of § 2503(c) to mean “may be expended within the limitations imposed on guardians by state law.” Ross v. United States 348 F.2d 577, 579 (5th Cir.1965).

Indeed, one court has declared that the words “may be expended” in section 2503(c) mean “may be expended within the limitations imposed on guardians by state law.” Ross v. United States, 348 F. 2d 577, 579 (C.A. 5, 1965). 9 Still another court has sustained a claim to the exclusion, reasoning that the trustee had at least as much discretion as a guardian under the law of the State where the gift was made.

Herr, 35 T.C. 732 (1961), aff’d, 303 F.2d 780 (3d Cir. 1962); (2) a Fifth Circuit case which interpreted “may be expended,” to mean “may be expended within the limitations imposed on guardians by state law,” Ross v. United States, 348 F.2d 577, 579 (5th Cir. 1965) — an interpretation which arguably allows greater restrictions than those in the clause in issue; (3) a textual analysis of the words of the clause, i. e., “maintenance, education, medical care, support and general…