Gaskill v. United States
Decision Date | 31 January 1983 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 82-1160. |
Citation | 561 F. Supp. 73 |
Parties | Glen C. GASKILL, Executor of the Estate of Sophie B. Gaskill, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Jack E. Dalton, Mangan Dalton & Trenkle Chartered, Dodge City, Kan., for plaintiff.
Jim J. Marquez, U.S. Atty., Topeka, Kan., Glen R. Dawson, Trial Atty., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant.
This is a suit by Glen C. Gaskill, as Executor of the Estate of his mother, Sophie B. Gaskill, to force the refund of $90,306.62 in estate taxes that were paid on or about December 26, 1979, because of the allegedly erroneous inclusion in Sophie Gaskill's gross estate of certain life estate interests as general powers of appointment under 26 U.S.C. § 2041. The parties agree that no material facts are in dispute, as the proper resolution of the case depends only on whether those life estate interests are properly categorized as pure life estates or as general powers of appointment. The case is currently before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Sophie Gaskill's husband, E.L. Gaskill, died testate on November 13, 1952. His will directed that his wife take the house, furniture, fixtures, utensils, and family automobile in fee simple, along with an undivided one-half interest in all of the residue of his estate. Debts, taxes, and administrative expenses were directed to be paid from the remaining half of the residue, and the remainder of that half was disposed of by the following clauses of the will:
According to Schedule H of Sophie Gaskill's federal estate tax return, the property in which she received the interest specified in clause III of E.L. Gaskill's will consisted of fourteen quarter-sections of land. The interest held by Sophie Gaskill was described in Schedule H as "a life estate with power of sale," and her gross estate was augmented by $294,698 by the inclusion of this property.
The pertinent provisions of 26 U.S.C. § 2041 are as follows:
The Treasury Regulations promulgated under this section provide additional insight:
Of course, the provisions of the will of E.L. Gaskill do not grant a power of appointment to Sophie Gaskill in so many words. Instead, a life estate with a power of disposition is granted. This Court must look to Kansas law to ascertain the substance and effect of this life estate and power of disposition, Gunn v. United States, 233 F.Supp. 931 (D.Kan.1964), even though the taxability of the interest as so determined is controlled by federal law, Morgan v. Commissioner, 309 U.S. 78, 60 S.Ct. 424, 84 L.Ed. 585 (1940).
The issue in this case must be resolved by interpreting the language of the will to determine if the life estate and power of disposition granted to Sophie Gaskill gave her the power, under Kansas law, to "appoint" the subject matter of the life estate to herself, her estate, her creditors, or the creditors of her estate. Because a life estate with a power of disposition is not equivalent to a fee interest under Kansas law, Windscheffel v. Wright, 187 Kan. 678, 360 P.2d 178 (1961), and because such a life estate therefore terminates at death, the inherent nature of the interest itself precludes the possibility of an "appointment" to an estate or the creditors of an estate. The question, therefore, is simplified to whether Sophie Gaskill could have "appointed" her interest to herself or her creditors under Kansas law. Because the will does not expressly provide for any appointment of the life estate property, the question can be further simplified to the following crucial inquiry. Do the terms of E.L. Gaskill's will, as interpreted under Kansas law, imply in favor of Sophie Gaskill the right to consume the life estate property? If they do, that power of consumption is a general power of appointment under Reg. 20.2041-1(b)(1), and consequently taxable under 26 U.S.C. § 2041.
As a preliminary matter, this Court notes that it is required by Kansas law "in construing the provisions of a will to place itself in the shoes of the testator at the time he made the will and determine as best it can the purpose and intentions he endeavored to convey by the language used." In re Estate of Lehner, 219 Kan. 100, 102, 547 P.2d 365 (1976). The intent of the testator, as perceived by this Court, must be given effect if possible, id. at 103, 547 P.2d 365.
The will of E.L. Gaskill, in this Court's opinion, expresses a clear and unambiguous intent that the entirety of the property comprising the life estate eventually find its way to the named remaindermen. The language in clause IV leaves no doubt on this score: "Subject to said life estate I give, devise and bequeath all of the remainder of my estate ... unto my children." (Emphasis added.) This language is obviously inconsistent with a power on the part of Sophie Gaskill to appoint the property to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Estate of Vissering v. C.I.R.
...(invasion of trust corpus in case of emergency or illness is an ascertainable standard under § 2041(b)(1)(A)); Gaskill v. United States, 561 F.Supp. 73, 78 (D.Kan.1983) (life estate with power of disposition but not to consume the proceeds did not create general power of appointment under §......
-
Gaskill v. U.S.
...and, therefore, the value of the life estate was not taxable as a part of the life tenant's estate upon her death. Gaskill v. United States, 561 F.Supp. 73 (D.Kan.1983). After oral argument, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, pursuant to the certification procedures set forth in K.S.A. 60-......
-
Gaskill v. U.S., 83-1433
...consideration whereof, it is ordered that the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas entered January 31, 1983, 561 F.Supp. 73, is The mandate shall issue forthwith. * Honorable Clarence A. Brimmer, Chief Judge, District of Wyoming, sitting by designation. ...
-
CERTIFICATION COMES OF AGE: REFLECTIONS ON THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF COOPERATIVE JUDICIAL FEDERALISM.
...598 F.2d 982 (5th Cir. 1979) (habeas); Hoadley v. Heggie, 617 F.2d 589 (10th Cir. 1980) (per curiam) (habeas); Gaskill v. United States, 561 F. Supp. 73 (D. Kan. 1983) (tax), aff'd mem., 787 F.2d 1446 (10th Cir. (130) A review of the certifications across all circuits for calendar year 2019......