U.S. Code » Title 26 » Subtitle Subtitle A— Income Taxes › Chapter CHAPTER 1— NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES › Subchapter Subchapter J— Estates, Trusts, Beneficiaries, and Decedents › Part PART I— ESTATES, TRUSTS, AND BENEFICIARIES › Subpart Subpart E— Grantors and Others Treated as Substantial Owners

26 U.S.C. § 676

Power to revoke

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 26 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) General rule

The grantor shall be treated as the owner of any portion of a trust, whether or not he is treated as such owner under any other provision of this part, where at any time the power to revest in the grantor title to such portion is exercisable by the grantor or a non-adverse party, or both.

(b) Power affecting beneficial enjoyment only after occurrence of event

Subsection (a) shall not apply to a power the exercise of which can only affect the beneficial enjoyment of the income for a period commencing after the occurrence of an event such that a grantor would not be treated as the owner under section 673 if the power were a reversionary interest. But the grantor may be treated as the owner after the occurrence of such event unless the power is relinquished.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 230; Pub. L. 99–514, title XIV, § 1402(b)(2), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2712.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1986—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 99–514 substituted “occurrence of event” for “expiration of 10-year period” in heading and in text substituted “the occurrence of an event” for “the expiration of a period” and “the occurrence of such event” for “the expiration of such period”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1986 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–514 applicable with respect to transfers in trust made after Mar. 1, 1986, except for transfers pursuant to a certain binding property settlement agreement, see section 1402(c) of Pub. L. 99–514, set out as a note under section 673 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case: United States v. Staniford A. Sorrentino
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Staniford A. Sorrentino (1984) ca1 “Sorrentino’s power to amend or alter the terms of the Trust also amounted to a power of revocation under 26 U.S.C. § 676 (a): “The grantor shall be treated as the owner of any portion of a trust .”
Kesling v. Kesling (2012) indctapp “at 26 (quoting 26 U.S.C. § 676 ). Second, Andrew argues that "the ability of creditors to obtain payment from the assets of a grantor trust for debts of the grantor, but not those of the trustee, further demonstrates that the grantor owns the trust assets, not the trustee.”
Roberts v. Roberts (1995) mass “For example, revocable inter vivas trusts used in estate planning are ignored for tax *689 purposes, see 26 U.S.C. § 676 (a) (1988), but are effective to hold and pass property, see National Shawmut Bank v.”
Duffy v. United States (1972) ohsd · cites it 3× “We must therefore determine whether the grantors are the owners of the corpus of the trust under 26 U.S.C. §§ 676 and/or 677. Section 676(a) provides: “The grantor shall be treated as the owner of any portion of a trust, *7 whether or not he is treated as such owner under any…”
Inez De Amodio, in No. 13740, John Amodio (Marquis Deamodio), in No. 13741 v. Commissioner of Internatal Revenue (1962) ca3 “Code of 1954, § 676, 26 U.S.C. § 676 ). While we think the Tax Court was correct in this, we think there is equally good reason for resting the result on section 167(a) (2) of the 1939 Code (now Int.”
Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co., of the Will of Walter D. K. Gibson, Deceased v. United States (1957) ca9 “§ 166 (1, 2); Section 676(a), Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. § 676 (a). Section 166, Internal Revenue Code, 1939, was controlling for that part of the year, 1941, which is in controversy, and it provides: “§ 166.”
In Re: Estate of E.J. Potocar, Potocar Family Trust ~ Appeal of: Dept. of Revenue, Inheritance Tax Div. (2022) pacommwct · cites it 3× “3 The Potocars expressly created the Trust to qualify as a “grantor trust,” under Section 676 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 676 . Reproduced Record (R.R.”
First National Bank v. United States (1966) med “Although not disclosed by the record, the defendant points out that the decedent’s obvious purpose in executing paragraph 8 of the supplement was to insure that the income of the trust was not taxable to her by virtue of Section 676(a) of the 1954 Code, 26 U.S.C. § 676 (a),…”
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Larry Winget (2022) ca6 “” 26 U.S.C. § 676 (a); see also Bogert’s The Law of Trusts and Trustees § 264.”
In Re: Estate of W.R. Armor & the Armor Family Trust ~ Appeal of: Dept. of Revenue, Inheritance Tax Div. (2022) pacommwct “” 26 U.S.C. § 676 (a). 2 Husband died on June 6, 2016.”
United States, ex rel. Todd Alan Duell v. State of Hawaii, ET AL. (2026) hid “That all trusts for any securities at bar shall be immediately ordered revoked and revested back to a restricted trust account in the name of the Relator, Secured Party Grantor, Bailor, Owner, and Beneficiary for willfully violating 26 USC § 676 , . . . . 9. Order the name[d]…”
Natalie Rose Peters v. Waukesha County Circuit Court, Waukesha County District Attorney's Office and Waukesha County She (2026) wied “Ongoing refusal to disclose nature of accusation; refusal to account for bonds/securities; retention of seized vehicle; failure to recognize 26 U.S.C. § 676 .” Id. In the field asking her to explain what she was challenging—how her sentence was being carried out, pretrial…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.