Ex Parte Forrester
Decision Date | 10 June 2005 |
Docket Number | 1040235. |
Citation | 914 So.2d 855 |
Parties | Ex parte Howard FORRESTER, as executor of the estate of Louise Forrester, (In re Susan Louise Phelps Hollis et al. v. Howard Forrester, as executor of the estate of Louise Forrester; et al.) |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
William P. Gray, Jr., and Harry O. Yates, Jr., of Gray & Associates, L.L.C., Birmingham; and Douglas L. McWhorter
of Dominick, Fletcher, Yeilding, Wood & Lloyd, P.A., Birmingham, for petitioner.
Charles D. Rosser of Rosser, Marthaler & Rosser, Tuscumbia, for respondents.
Howard Forrester, as the executor of the estate of Louise Forrester, appeals from the Court of Civil Appeals' reversal of the judgment of the Jefferson Probate Court.1 We affirm.
The Court of Civil Appeals stated the relevant facts in Hollis v. Forrester, 914 So.2d 852, 852-54 (Ala.Civ.App.2004):
(Emphasis added.)
The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment of the probate court and held that the Alabama estate taxes should have been paid from the residue of Emily's estate, rather than from the corpus of the QTIP trust. As a result of the Court of Civil Appeals' ruling, because the corpus of the trust was left to George's three nieces — Susan Louise Phelps Hollis, Ann Lourie Phelps Nichols, and Margaret Jo Phelps Snow ("the nieces") — their bequest was not reduced by the Alabama estate taxes due on Emily's death. We granted Forrester's petition for certiorari review to determine whether the Court of Civil Appeals was correct in its ruling.
"[B]ecause the underlying facts are not disputed and this appeal focuses on the application of the law to those facts, there can be no presumption of correctness accorded to the trial court's ruling." Beavers v. County of Walker, 645 So.2d 1365, 1373 (Ala.1994) (citing First Nat'l Bank of Mobile v. Duckworth, 502 So.2d 709 (Ala.1987)). Appellate review of a ruling on a question of law is de novo. See Rogers Found. Repair, Inc. v. Powell, 748 So.2d 869 (Ala.1999); Ex parte Graham, 702 So.2d 1215 (Ala.1997).
Generally speaking, the value of property passing from a decedent to his or her surviving spouse is deducted from the decedent's gross estate for the purpose of calculating federal estate-tax liability. See I.R.C. § 2056 ( ). In certain situations, the Internal Revenue Code allows the marital deduction for the value of property transferred to a surviving spouse even though the spouse receives less than full ownership rights in the property transferred. One such transfer is described as a "Qualified Terminable Interest Property" ("QTIP") trust. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in Davis v. Commissioner, 394 F.3d 1294, 1297-98 (9th Cir.2005), briefly described the requirements of the QTIP trust and its relationship to the marital deduction:
(Footnotes omitted.)
While the decedent is afforded the marital deduction for the value of property transferred in a QTIP trust, the value of that property is included in the estate of the surviving spouse when he or she dies. See I.R.C. § 2044. However, I.R.C. § 2207A allows the executor of the estate of the surviving spouse to collect from the person receiving the property formerly held in the trust the amount of federal estate tax resulting from the presence of a QTIP trust:
(Emphasis added.)
Standing in marked contrast to I.R.C. § 2207A is § 40-15-18, Ala.Code 1975, the provision of the Alabama Revenue Code addressing the allocation of the burden of state and federal estate taxes. Section 40-15-18 states:
"Unless the decedent directs otherwise in his will, all estate taxes, whether state or federal, payable by reason of the death of the decedent, shall be paid by the executor or other personal representative out of the estate property and shall be a charge against the residue thereof, and the executor or other personal representative shall be under no duty to recover from anyone for the benefit of the estate the pro rata portion of the estate tax attributable to inclusion in the gross estate of any property, including proceeds of policies of insurance upon the life of the decedent receivable by a beneficiary other than the executor or other personal representative, which does not pass to the executor or other personal representative as a part of the estate."
(Emphasis added.)
While § 40-15-18 purports to address the burden of both state and federal estate taxes, I.R.C. § 2207A preempts § 40-15-18 with respect to allocating the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wood v. Booth
...novo. See Rogers Found. Repair, Inc. v. Powell, 748 So.2d 869 (Ala.1999); Ex parte Graham, 702 So.2d 1215 (Ala.1997)." Ex parte Forrester, 914 So.2d 855, 858 (Ala.2005). Discussion This appeal presents issues similar to those we addressed in Roper v. Rhodes, 988 So.2d 471 (Ala.2008), in whi......
-
Roper v. Rhodes
...novo. See Rogers Found. Repair, Inc. v. Powell, 748 So.2d 869 (Ala.1999); Ex parte Graham, 702 So.2d 1215 (Ala.1997)." Ex parte Forrester, 914 So.2d 855, 858 (Ala.2005). Discussion The Ropers' claims for relief are based on allegations that Rhodes failed to file reports required to be filed......
-
Mobile Infirmary Ass'n v. Tyler
...McBride v. Sheppard, 624 So.2d 1069, 1070-71 (Ala.1993)). However, we review a ruling on a question of law de novo. Ex parte Forrester, 914 So.2d 855, 858 (Ala.2005)." Parker Bldg. Servs. Co. v. Lightsey, 925 So.2d 927, 930 The Infirmary contends that Karen Cepero, a registered nurse who te......
-
Parker Bldg. Services Co. Inc. v. Lightsey
...McBride v. Sheppard, 624 So.2d 1069, 1070-71 (Ala.1993)). However, we review a ruling on a question of law de novo. Ex parte Forrester, 914 So.2d 855, 858 (Ala. 2005). III. We note that these facts present a case of first impression. This Court has never addressed the issue whether a violat......