King v. Wiseman
Decision Date | 27 November 1956 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 6900. |
Parties | Olga W. KING, an individual, and A. E. King, Jr., Trustee, Plaintiffs, v. Earl WISEMAN, District Director of Internal Revenue, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
Charles N. Berry, Jr., Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiff.
Leonard L. Ralston, Asst. U. S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant.
Action by beneficiaries of an estate to recover estate taxes paid as a result of the disallowance of claimed deductions.
Arthur E. King died testate in 1951. His will contained three dispositive provisions. The first provided for the payment of debts and funeral expenses. The second was a bequest of "one-half of all my property" to his wife. The third provision was a bequest of "all of the remaining one-half of my property" to his wife and son as trustees of a trust for the benefit of the wife for life, remainder to his five children. Pending the settlement of the estate the probate court ordered the executor to pay $1,250 per month to the widow for support and maintenance under the authority of 58 Okl.Stat. § 314.
The present action raises these two issues:
As to the first issue the Director has conceded that one-half of the widow's allowance should be included as a part of the marital deduction. This Court concludes that under the Oklahoma Statutes the allowance given to a widow when approved and authorized by the Probate Court vests in the widow an absolute indefeasible right to said allowance and that it should all be included in the marital deduction. This widow's allowance under the Oklahoma Statutes is not even part of the gross estate subject to administration and federal estate taxes under § 2031 of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 2031.
It has long been held that the ultimate impact of the Federal estate tax is determined by the state law. Riggs v. Del Drago, 317 U.S. 95; 63 S.Ct. 109, 87 L.Ed. 106. This situation is controlled by 58 Okl.Stat. § 311 and 314.
The word "may" in Section 314, supra, has been held to mean "must" by the California Court in construing a similar statute. In re Still's Estate, 117 Cal. 509, 49 p. 463.
The Oklahoma Court in Hale v. Hale, 40 Okl. 101, 106, 135 P. 1143, 1145, in interpreting these Sections said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States Nat. Bank of Portland v. United States
...bound by the decision in Cunha. The cases relied on by plaintiff, Estate of Proctor D. Rensenhouse, 1958, 31 T.C. 818; King v. Wiseman, D.C.W.D.Okl. 1956, 147 F.Supp. 156; Molner v. United States, D.C.N.D.Ill.1959, 175 F.Supp. 271, are reconciled by Cunha. It would appear that the state law......
-
First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Augusta v. United States
...re Estate of Rensenhouse, 27 T.C. 107, remanded 6 Cir., 1958, 252 F.2d 566, redetermined January 23, 1959, 31 T.C. 818; King v. Wiseman, D.C.W.D.Okl.1956, 147 F.Supp. 156; Quivey v. United States, D.C.Neb., Sept. 15, 1959, 176 F.Supp. The main arguments submitted by counsel for the Defendan......
-
Molner v. United States
...upon the question as to whether a surviving spouse's award qualifies for the marital deduction. The first of these was King v. Wiseman, D.C.Okl., 147 F.Supp. 156, in which the court held that under the Oklahoma statutes the allowance given to a widow, when approved and authorized by the Pro......
-
United States v. First National Bank & T. Co. of Augusta
...of the interest at the time that interest arose, treating that time as being at the time of the court award. In King v. Wiseman, D.C.W.D.Okl. 1956, 147 F.Supp. 156, a widow's allowance under the Oklahoma law was held not to terminate or abate upon the death or remarriage of the widow and di......