Awtry's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Decision Date | 26 April 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 15181.,15181. |
Citation | 221 F.2d 749 |
Parties | ESTATE OF Emmet AWTRY, Deceased, Nellie Awtry, Executrix, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Ned P. Gilbert, Oskaloosa, Iowa, for petitioner.
L. W. Post, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen. (H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen., were with him on the brief), for respondent.
Before SANBORN, COLLET and VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judges.
VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judge.
This case is before this court on petition by the Estate of Emmet Awtry, Deceased, for review of the decision of The Tax Court, 22 T.C. 91, determining a deficiency in estate tax in the amount of $3,823.12. The Commissioner and The Tax Court denied petitioner a marital deduction as to certain property, hereinafter described, held by decedent and his spouse as joint tenants. The court based its decision upon its conclusion that the interest of the surviving spouse, Nellie Awtry, in the joint tenancy property was a terminable interest as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 812(e) (1) (B).1 The petitioner contends that The Tax Court erred in so holding for the reason that the joint tenancy property passed as the result of the joint tenancy contract, that the surviving spouse did not obtain an interest in any of such property by virtue of the will, and that the interest acquired in the joint tenancy property by the surviving sponse was an absolute and complete interest and not a terminable interest. The decedent, Emmet Awtry, and his spouse, Nellie, were at all times material to this controversy residents of the State of Iowa.
On July 21, 1947, Emmet Awtry and Nellie Awtry executed a joint mutual will which, so far as material to this controversy, provides:
Emmet Awtry died July 31, 1950, survived by his wife, Nellie. The foregoing instrument was admitted to probate on August 23, 1950, as the last will of Emmet Awtry. His spouse, Nellie Awtry, qualified as executrix and elected to take under the will. A timely federal estate tax return was filed. As adjusted the following values are agreed upon:
Gross estate (including full value of joint tenancy property upon which marital deduction is being claimed) $106,181.62 Agreed deductions (excluding specific exemption and marital deductions) 11,608.72 ___________ Adjusted Gross Estate $94,572.90
Deducting the $60,000 specific exemption from the adjusted gross estate leaves $34,572.90 subject to tax, upon which the tax due is the amount determined by The Tax Court. The marital deduction as to the joint tenancy property if allowable is in excess of the amount the Government contends is taxable, and if the estate is entitled to a marital deduction on the joint tenancy property there is no tax due.
The property as to which the marital deduction is claimed and the facts relative thereto are set out in the stipulation of the parties as follows:
Emmet Awtry contributed the consideration for the acquisition of said assets. The petitioner does not claim a marital deduction as to any property of which Emmet Awtry died seized. The instruments creating the joint tenancy are Iowa contracts. The will was executed and probated in Iowa. The effect that these various instruments have upon passing title to the property in controversy must be determined by the Iowa law. The State law creates the legal interests and rights. Helvering v. Stuart, 317 U.S. 154, 161, 63 S.Ct. 140, 87 L.Ed. 154; Kasper v. Kellar, 8 Cir., 217 F.2d 744; Irvine v. Helvering, 8 Cir., 99 F.2d 265.
Joint tenancies in real and personal property have long been recognized and enforced by the Iowa courts. Some of the cases dealing with real estate will first be considered.
In Wood v. Logue, 167 Iowa 436, 149 N.W. 613, real estate was deeded to three joint tenants. Upon the death of the first the administrator of her estate sought to sell the interest of the deceased joint tenant for the payment of debts. The Supreme Court denied this relief holding that upon death the interest of the joint tenant terminated. In the course of the opinion the court stated, 149 N.W. at page 615:
In Hruby v. Wayman, 230 Iowa 653, 298 N.W. 639, title was acquired by husband and wife by deed in joint tenancy. The husband died first. The court quieted title in the wife's devisees against the claim of the husband's heirs, stating, 298 N.W. at page 641:
* * *"
In Wernet v. Jurgensen, 241 Iowa 833, 43 N.W.2d 194, at page 197, we find the following:
* * *"
Joint tenancies in bank accounts have been considered and recognized by the Iowa court on a number of occasions. In Hill v. Havens, 242 Iowa 920, 48 N. W.2d 870, the prior decisions involving joint tenancies in bank deposits are analyzed and considered. In that case the beneficiaries under the decedent's will sought to impress a resulting trust upon a joint tenancy bank account and co-ownership Government bonds. This relief was denied. In discussing some of the prior cases involving the same problem, the court stated, 48 N.W.2d at page 875:
"* * * We think it should also be pointed out again that we had not, at the time of the decision of these cases, clearly adopted the contract and joint tenancy theory. * * *"
The present rule is thus stated, 48 N. W.2d at page 876:
See also McManis v. Keokuk Savings Bank & Trust Company, 239 Iowa 1105, 33 N.W.2d 410; In re Estate of Murdoch, 238 Iowa 898, 29 N.W.2d 177.
It is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lenders' Estate, In re
...his lifetime unless he has expressly agreed not to do so." The statement is quoted with approval in Awtry's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 8 Cir., 221 F.2d 749, 758. See also Annotation 108 A.L.R. 867, Other Iowa decisions which lend support to our conclusion here are Kisor v. ......
-
Estate of Reno v. C.I.R.
...(1964); Stevens v. Sparks, 205 Va. 128, 135 S.E.2d 140 (1964); Johnson v. McCarty, 202 Va. 49, 115 S.E.2d 915 (1960); Awtry v. Commissioner, 221 F.2d 749 (8th Cir.1955). 7 Those cases simply have nothing to do with the scope of a testator's power to apportion federal and state estate tax bu......
-
Randall's Estate v. McKibben, 54676
...but this they did not do. Sawyer v. Sawyer, 261 Iowa 112, 119--120, 152 N.W.2d 605, 609--610. See also Awtry's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 221, F.2d 749, 756--757 (8 Cir.). VII. On the other hand we dealt with the matter of mutual wills in Gillette v. Cable, 248 Iowa 7, 11, ......
-
Peyton's Estate v. CIR
...In this case it is Minnesota law which determines the nature of the property interest passing to Mrs. Peyton. Estate of Awtry v. Commissioner, 221 F.2d 749, 753 (8 Cir., 1955); Poage v. Phillips, 202 F.Supp. 267, 269 (S.D.Iowa 1961). Further, an adjudication of property rights by a state co......