Estate of Leder v. C.I.R.

Decision Date28 December 1989
Docket NumberNo. 88-1125,88-1125
Citation893 F.2d 237
Parties-1173, 90-1 USTC P 60,001 ESTATE OF Joseph LEDER, Deceased, Jeanne Leder, Executrix, Petitioners-Appellees, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

John A. Dudeck, Jr. (William S. Rose, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. and Gary R. Allen and Robert S. Pomerance, Attys., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., with him on the briefs), Atty., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent-appellant.

Steven P. Cole (Randall D. Mock, of Mock, Schwabe, Waldo, Elder, Reeves & Bryant, a Professional Corp., Oklahoma City, Okl., with him on the brief), of Mock, Schwabe, Waldo, Elder, Reeves & Bryant, a Professional Corporation, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for petitioners-appellees.

Before ANDERSON and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and WINDER, District Judge. *

TACHA, Circuit Judge.

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("Commissioner") appeals the decision of the United States Tax Court ("Tax Court") that the proceeds from an insurance policy are not includable in the insured's gross estate under section 2035(d) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. Sec. 2035(d), where the decedent never possessed any of the incidents of ownership in the policy under section 2042. We affirm.

I.

The parties stipulated to the facts of this case. The decedent, Joseph Leder, died on May 31, 1983. At the time of his death, Joseph Leder was insured under a $1,000,000 policy issued by TransAmerica Occidental Life Insurance Company on January 28, 1981 ("the policy"). Jeanne Leder, the decedent's wife, signed the policy application as the owner and the decedent signed as the insured. The policy initially reflected that Jeanne Leder was the policy owner and sole beneficiary.

The premiums for the policy, $3,879.08 per month, were paid by preauthorized withdrawals from the account of Leader Enterprises, the decedent's wholly owned corporation. All of the policy premiums were paid less than three years before the decedent's death. Leader Enterprises treated the premium payments as loans made to the decedent. Neither Leader Enterprises nor the decedent received any consideration from Jeanne Leder in exchange for these premium payments.

On February 15, 1983, Jeanne Leder, as the owner of the policy, transferred the policy to herself as trustee of an inter vivos trust. The trust agreement provided that upon receipt of the trust corpus, the trustee would divide the trust into four equal shares for the benefit of Jeanne Leder and the Leders' three children. No further assignments of the policy proceeds or changes in the beneficiaries of the policy were made.

Upon the decedent's death the proceeds of the policy, $971,526.49, were distributed as provided for in the trust agreement. The proceeds were not included in the decedent's gross estate on the federal estate tax return filed for the decedent's estate.

The Commissioner determined that the proceeds of the policy were properly includable in the decedent's gross estate under section 2035 and sent Jeanne Leder, the executrix of Joseph Leder's estate, a notice of deficiency. The estate challenged the Commissioner's determination in the Tax Court.

The Tax Court held that the policy proceeds were not includable in the decedent's gross estate under section 2035. Section 2035 provides in relevant part:

SEC. 2035. ADJUSTMENTS FOR GIFTS MADE WITHIN 3 YEARS OF DECEDENT'S DEATH.

(a) Inclusion of Gifts Made by Decedent.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the value of the gross estate shall include the value of all property to the extent of any interest therein of which the decedent has at any time made a transfer, by trust or otherwise, during the 3-year period ending on the date of the decedent's death.

(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply--

....

(2) to any gift to a donee made during a calendar year if the decedent was not required by section 6019 (other than by reason of section 6019(2)) to file any gift tax return for such year with respect to gifts to such donee.

Paragraph (2) shall not apply to any transfer with respect to a life insurance policy.

....

(d) Decedents Dying After 1981.--

(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, subsection (a) shall not apply to the estate of a decedent dying after December 31, 1981.

(2) Exceptions for certain transfers.--Paragraph (1) of this subsection and paragraph (2) of subsection (b) shall not apply to a transfer of an interest in property which is included in the value of the gross estate under section 2036, 2037, 2038, or 2042 or would have been included under any of such sections if such interest had been retained by the decedent.

26 U.S.C. Sec. 2035.

Section 2035(a) generally requires that the value of any property or interest transferred by the decedent within three years of death for less than full and adequate consideration be included in the decedent's gross estate (the "three year inclusionary rule"). The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, Pub.L. No. 97-34, Sec. 424, 95 Stat. 172, 317 [hereinafter ERTA], added section 2035(d), which applies to the estates of decedents dying after 1981. Construing section 2035 as a whole, the Tax Court found that for decedents dying after 1981, subsection (d)(1) nullifies the three year inclusionary rule of subsection (a), except for those transfers described in subsection (d)(2). Section 2035(d)(2) specifically references transfers under section 2042, which provides in relevant part:

SEC. 2042. PROCEEDS OF LIFE INSURANCE.

The value of the gross estate shall include the value of all property--

(1) Receivable by the executor.--To the extent of the amount receivable by the executor as insurance under policies on the life of the decedent.

(2) Receivable by other beneficiaries.--To the extent of the amount receivable by all other beneficiaries as insurance under policies on the life of the decedent with respect to which the decedent possessed at his death any of the incidents of ownership, exercisable either alone or in conjunction with any other person. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term "incident of ownership" includes a reversionary interest (whether arising by the express terms of the policy or other instrument or by operation of law) only if the value of such reversionary interest exceeded 5 percent of the value of the policy immediately before the death of the decedent. As used in this paragraph, the term "reversionary interest" includes a possibility that the policy, or the proceeds of the policy, may return to the decedent or his estate, or may be subject to a power of disposition by him.

26 U.S.C. Sec. 2042 (emphasis added).

Critically, under section 2042 the decedent's payment of premiums is irrelevant in determining whether the decedent retained any "incidents of ownership" in the policy proceeds. See First Nat'l Bank v. United States, 488 F.2d 575, 578 (9th Cir.1973); Bel v. United States, 452 F.2d 683, 689 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 919, 92 S.Ct. 1770, 32 L.Ed.2d 118 (1972); Estate of Headrick v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 171, 178-79 (1989). Congress intended to eliminate the premium payment test used in the 1939 Code when it adopted section 2042. See First Nat'l Bank, 488 F.2d at 578. Both the House and Senate committee reports stated that section 2042 "revises existing law so that payment of premiums is no longer a factor in determining the taxability under this section of insurance proceeds." Id. (emphasis in First Nat'l Bank ) (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. A316, reprinted in 1954 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 4017, 4459; citing S.Rep. No. 1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. 472 (1954)).

The Tax Court examined section 2042 and determined that the decedent never possessed any rights to the insurance policy that would constitute "incidents of ownership." Because the policy proceeds were not includable under section 2042, the Tax Court concluded that the section 2035(d)(2) exception did not apply, and thus under the general rule of section 2035(d)(1) the proceeds from the insurance policy were not includable in the decedent's gross estate. In so holding the Tax Court emphasized that it did not reach the issue of the includability of the policy proceeds under the "constructive transfer" caselaw doctrine developed under section 2035(a) because section 2035(d)(1) overrides section 2035(a). 1

II.

We review the Tax Court's decision "in the same manner and to the same extent as decisions of the district courts in civil actions tried without a jury." 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7482. Consequently, we review the Tax Court's determinations of law de novo. See In re Ruti-Sweetwater, Inc., 836 F.2d 1263, 1266 (10th Cir.1988). The proper application of section 2035 to the estate of a decedent dying after December 31, 1981, is a statutory construction question of first impression. The principal issue on appeal is whether the term "transfer" in section 2035(d)(2) includes so-called "constructive transfers" as described in Bel, 452 F.2d at 691-92, or if section 2035(d)(2)'s cross reference to section 2042 implicitly limits the term's scope. The Tax Court held that the subsection (d)(2) cross reference did limit "transfer." The Commissioner contends on appeal, however, that Congress did not intend subsections (d)(1) and (d)(2) to exclude "constructive transfers" from the decedent's gross estate for estate tax purposes.

The constructive transfer doctrine developed under section 2035(a) prior to the passage of the ERTA and the addition of subsection (d) to section 2035. Under section 2035(a), a " 'transfer' is not limited to the passing of property directly from the donor to the transferee, but encompasses a donation 'procured through expenditures by the decedent with the purpose, effected at his death, of having it pass to another,' " Bel, 452 F.2d at 691. The typical example of a constructive transfer is where the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • U.S. v. Villanueva-Sotelo
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 15 Febrero 2008
    ...(6th Cir.1990) (tax statutes "`specifically cross referenc[ing]'" each other construed in pari materia) (quoting Estate of Leder v. Comm'n, 893 F.2d 237, 241 (10th Cir.1989)); United States v. Rodriguez, 60 F.3d 193, 196 (5th Cir.1995) ("explicit cross reference's supported construing U.S.S......
  • Lee v. Rogers Agency
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 6 Octubre 2016
    ...exercisable either alone or in conjunction with any other person," of the Policies. 26 U.S.C. § 2042 ; see also Estate of Leder v. C.I.R. , 893 F.2d 237, 242–43 (10th Cir. 1989) (concluding that an insured who "never held any ownership, economic, or other contractual rights in the policy" d......
  • In re Bushey
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of New Mexico
    • 14 Octubre 2016
    ...premiums by a party other than the owner does not effectuate a change in ownership of the policy. Cf. Estate of Leder v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 893 F.2d 237, 241 (10th Cir. 1989) (interpreting sections of the tax code regarding incidents of ownership of an insurance policy, and conclud......
  • Marks v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Marks)
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • 23 Mayo 1990
    ...his or her respective life under the terms of section 2042. Estate of Leder v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 235, 242 (1987), affd. 893 F.2d 237 (10th Cir. 1989). As we previously concluded, under Louisiana law neither decedent possessed any incidents of ownership in the policy insuring his (or her......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Significant recent developments in estate planning.
    • United States
    • The Tax Adviser Vol. 23 No. 10, October 1992
    • 1 Octubre 1992
    ...Perry, St,, 927 F2d 209 {Sth Cir. 1991){67 AFTR2d 91-1200, 91-1 USTC [PARAGRAPH]60,064); Est. of Headrick, note 22; Est. of Joseph Leder, 893 F2d 237 (10th CIR. 1989)(65 AFTR2d 90-1173, 90-1 USTC [PARAGRAPH[60,001]. [29] IRS Letter Ruling (TAM)9127007 [3/26/91). [30] Rev. Rul. 82-141, 1982-......
  • Survivor Life: a Face Lift for a Stodgy Estate Planning Dowager
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 20-6, June 1991
    • Invalid date
    ...93 TC 171 (1989), aff'd, 918 F.2d 1263 (6th Cir. 1990); Estate of Chapman, TC Memo 1989-106; Estate of Leder, 89 TC 235 (1987), aff'd, 893 F.2d 237 (10th Cir. 1989). 14. Supra, note 12. 15. Kinsley v. U.S., 901 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1990) and Schnack v. Commission, 848 F.2d 933 (9th Cir. 1988)......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT