She Put $200 Million of Walmart Stock Into Two Trusts — Then Beat the IRS in Tax Court
Audrey Walton's 1993 GRATs produced a landmark tax case whose name still appears in sophisticated estate-planning conversations decades later.
In 1993, Audrey Walton placed roughly $200 million of Walmart stock into two grantor retained annuity trusts. The IRS challenged the gift valuation. The resulting Tax Court decision helped create the structure now widely known as the “Walton GRAT.”
Photo: Wikideas1 / Wikimedia Commons — CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication · Editorial image: Walmart storefront. The image is illustrative of the company whose shares funded the trusts and does not depict the specific transactions discussed.
In 1993, Audrey J. Walton owned more than seven million shares of Walmart stock.
Audrey was the wife of Walmart co-founder James “Bud” Walton, the brother and business partner of Walmart founder Sam Walton.
On April 7, 1993, Audrey created two grantor retained annuity trusts — commonly called GRATs. One trust was created for the benefit of her daughter Ann Walton Kroenke, and the other was created for Nancy Walton Laurie.
Each trust received 3,611,739 shares of Walmart stock. At the time, the stock placed into each trust had a fair market value of approximately $100 million — meaning roughly $200 million of Walmart stock went into the two GRATs.
That transaction eventually produced a U.S. Tax Court case whose name became attached to one of the most widely discussed estate-planning structures used by wealthy families: the Walton GRAT.
What Is a GRAT?
GRAT stands for Grantor Retained Annuity Trust.
The basic structure works like this: a person transfers assets into an irrevocable trust, retaining the right to receive annuity payments for a fixed period.
At the end of the term, any value remaining in the trust can pass to the remainder beneficiaries. The gift-tax value of the remainder interest is determined using statutory valuation rules.
Audrey Walton's Two Trusts
Audrey Walton created two substantially identical GRATs, each with a two-year term.
Each received approximately $100 million of Walmart stock and named one of her daughters as the remainder beneficiary.
Audrey retained the right to receive large annuity payments during the two-year term. The trust instruments also provided that if Audrey died before the end of the term, the remaining scheduled annuity payments would be paid to her estate — a provision that became central to the tax dispute.
The Gift Was Reported at Essentially Zero
On Audrey Walton's gift-tax return, she treated the value of the remainder gifts to her daughters as $0.
Her position was that the actuarial value of the annuity interest she retained essentially equaled the value of the property transferred to the trusts.
The IRS disagreed and determined that the taxable value of the gift associated with each GRAT was approximately $3.82 million.
Audrey later conceded that each taxable gift should not literally have been zero, asserting in litigation that the value of each gift was approximately $6,195.
The Tax Court Case
The dispute became Audrey J. Walton v. Commissioner (115 T.C. 589, decided December 22, 2000).
The central issue involved how Audrey's retained annuity interest should be valued. The IRS argued that part of the annuity interest payable to Audrey's estate if she died during the trust term should not receive the same favorable retained-interest treatment.
The Tax Court rejected that interpretation, concluding that the annuity payable during the fixed two-year term — whether paid to Audrey or, if necessary, her estate — should be treated as a qualified retained interest for purposes of the valuation rules.
The court also held that the Treasury regulation example relied upon by the IRS was an invalid interpretation of the statute. That ruling dramatically reduced the value attributed to the taxable remainder gift compared with the IRS position.
Why It Became the “Walton GRAT”
The importance of the case extended beyond Audrey Walton.
The decision made it possible to structure GRATs so that the present value of the retained annuity can be set very close to the value initially transferred into the trust, leaving the actuarial value of the remainder gift at approximately zero or a nominal amount.
This structure became widely known as a zeroed-out GRAT or Walton GRAT.
Note: this does not mean all future wealth automatically transfers free of tax. The strategy depends on the assets outperforming the applicable Section 7520 hurdle rate and on other statutory requirements being satisfied.
The Twist: Audrey's GRATs Did Not Produce a Remainder
This is a critical part of the real story: the two GRATs that produced the famous court case did not actually leave excess assets for Audrey Walton's daughters.
The Walmart shares did not perform strongly enough during the two-year term to exceed the required annuity payments, and the assets in both trusts were exhausted in making the annuity payments back to Audrey.
According to the Tax Court record, each trust actually ended with a shortfall in the amounts scheduled to be paid to Audrey, meaning no property remained for the daughters at the end of those particular GRATs.
This does not make the case unimportant. Quite the opposite: the court ruling established a valuation principle that later planners could use in cases where transferred assets did outperform the required hurdle rate.
How the Strategy Can Work
In a zeroed-out GRAT, the grantor structures the annuity payments so that their present value approximately equals the value transferred to the trust.
If the assets perform at or below the assumed Section 7520 rate, little or no value may remain for beneficiaries.
If the assets appreciate faster than the hurdle rate, the excess growth may remain in the trust for beneficiaries after the annuity obligation has been satisfied.
The zeroed-out structure is designed to minimize the taxable value of the initial remainder gift, subject to applicable gift and estate tax rules.
Why This Became Such a Big Deal
The Walton case demonstrated that sophisticated wealth-transfer planning can turn heavily on valuation, timing, asset growth, interest rates, trust terms, and ownership structure.
The asset inside Audrey Walton's trusts was Walmart stock, but the lasting legacy was the legal treatment of the trust structure itself.
That is why decades later estate-planning professionals still use the phrase Walton GRAT.
A family fortune. A Tax Court case. A structure that kept the family name.
The Tax Fortunes Lesson
This is one of the clearest Tax Fortunes stories because it shows that the fortune and the structure owning the fortune can be two different things.
Walmart created the underlying wealth. The GRAT was designed to determine what happened to future appreciation. The court case determined how the retained interest and remainder gift could be valued.
The lesson is not 'copy the Waltons' — GRATs are sophisticated legal and tax structures with valuation rules, mortality risk, interest-rate risk, administrative requirements, and estate-tax consequences.
The lesson is: the tax game often begins with ownership before the asset appreciates. You have to ask: Who owns the appreciating asset? What structure owns it? What rights did the original owner retain? What value was transferred? What hurdle rate must the asset beat? Who receives the excess appreciation? What happens if the strategy fails?
That is the Tax Game.
Tax Fortunes summarizes publicly reported court records and professional commentary for educational and journalistic purposes. The 1993 Audrey Walton GRATs discussed in the Tax Court case did not themselves produce a remainder distribution to her daughters because the trusts were exhausted by the required annuity payments. The importance of Walton v. Commissioner lies in the court's valuation ruling and the estate-planning structure that later became widely known as the zeroed-out or 'Walton' GRAT. Tax and estate-planning consequences depend on individual facts, valuations, trust terms, applicable interest rates, and current law. This article is not individualized tax, legal, accounting, investment, trust, gift-tax, or estate-planning advice.
Sources & Notes
- Audrey J. Walton v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 589 (United States Tax Court, December 22, 2000)
- William Blair — Using a GRAT for Wealth Transfer Purposes (discussing the Walton GRAT origin)
- Miller Capital — Wealth Transfer Investing: Getting to the GRAT
- Walmart Inc. — public ownership and family-governance filings
- Walmart Enterprises, LLC — statement regarding long-term ownership planning (December 19, 2024)
- Wikimedia Commons — Walmart storefront image (Wikideas1 / CC0)
The tax game starts before the transfer.
Sophisticated ownership planning depends on knowing what is owned, who owns it, basis, valuations, equity, distributions, transactions, and the financial history supporting the structure. The trust may be sophisticated. The records underneath it still matter. That starts with the books.
More from the feed