Mappes v. United States, Civ. No. 9417.
| Decision Date | 18 May 1962 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 9417. |
| Citation | 208 F. Supp. 42 |
| Parties | Lottie A. MAPPES, Individually, and Ernest E. Mappes, Executor of William G. Mappes, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
Tom W. Garrett, Garrett & Garrett, Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiffs.
Leonard L. Ralston, Asst. U. S. Atty., Western Dist. of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant.
This case is before the Court on an agreed stipulation of facts. The plaintiff, Lottie A. Mappes, individually, and Ernest E. Mappes, executor of the estate of William G. Mappes, deceased, are suing to recover money paid to the Department of Internal Revenue under protest.
Essentially the facts are that the decedent died on or about August 20, 1959, leaving as his sole and surviving heirs his widow, Lottie A. Mappes, and his sons, Ernest E. Mappes and Vernon G. Mappes. He died testate and his will was admitted to probate in the County Court of Oklahoma County on or about September 8, 1959. All of the property owned by the deceased was distributed to his widow, by virtue of the terms of his will, by the County Court of Oklahoma County on March 29, 1960.
The administrator of the estate filed a tax return deducting therefrom fifty per cent (50%) of the value of the property as a marital deduction. The Director of Internal Revenue, on May 9, 1961, disallowed the marital deduction under Section 2056 of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code and made certain other adjustments to the gross estate, which we are not concerned with in this law suit. The disallowance and the adjustments resulted in an additional assessment of $3,215.53 together with interest of $102.28, or a total of $3,317.81. This additional assessment, as required by law, was paid by Lottie A. Mappes and a claim for refund was duly made. The refund was disallowed on August 25, 1961, and subsequently this action was filed to recover the amount paid under protest.
The Court finds that it has jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues in this case. The sole question to be decided by the Court is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the marital deduction. Under pertinent Oklahoma law, of course, the property involved passed under the will. The pertinent provisions of the will, we think, are contained in Paragraph II and Paragraph III.
Paragraph II says and I quote: "I give, devise and bequeath to my wife, Lottie Mappes, if living at the time of my death, all of the remainder of my property, real, personal and mixed, wherever it may be situated."
The only modification of this outright devise, if any, is found in Paragraph III, which says:
It has been called to our attention by the parties to this action, through their briefs, that when the will was probated in Oklahoma all the property, as provided in the will, passed to and became the property of the plaintiff, Lottie A. Mappes, who was not only living at the time the decedent died but continued to live through the probate proceedings. The final decree of the Probate Court of Oklahoma County says:
"And under the terms of his will, all the above described property, as well as any other property belonging to William G. Mappes at the time of his death, should be distributed to his wife, Lottie Mappes."
We believe the sole question before the court on the stipulated set of facts is whether or not, under local (Oklahoma) law, the interest which passed to Lottie Mappes was a contingent interest, or a vested interest subject to complete defeasance and thus terminable under Section 2056 of the Internal Revenue Code, or whether the interest passing to the plaintiff vested at the decedent's death, and not terminable, so that it would comply with the provisions necessary for the marital deduction.
The so-called "Marital Deduction" here under discussion was enacted by the Congress in recent years to alleviate a tax discrepancy which arose because of differences in the property laws of the various states. The community property law states provide, in substance, that all property acquired during coverture belongs to the husband and wife jointly and that each is entitled to one-half upon the death of the other. Under the estate tax law this means that only one-half of the property owned by the two would pass from the deceased spouse to the survivor, and it necessarily follows that only one-half could be taxed. In the common law states the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bookwalter v. Lámar
...which passes upon the decedent's death. The facts and circumstances in United States v. Mappes, supra, 318 F.2d 508, reversing 208 F.Supp. 42 (W.D.Okla. 1962),4 where the issue was also whether a widow was entitled to a "marital deduction," are remarkably similar to those of the instant cas......
-
United States v. Mappes
...which passed by the will was not a terminable interest, within the meaning of the applicable federal statute. See: Mappes v. United States, D.C., 208 F. Supp. 42. For the purpose of determining whether the interest which passed to the spouse was a terminable interest, within the meaning of ......
-
Lámar v. Bookwalter
...upon it and held that the wife was entitled to her marital deduction. A similar situation appeared in Oklahoma in Mappes et al. v. United States, 208 F.Supp. 42 (D.C.) it was held that a determination by the state probate court where testator provided in his will "I give, devise and bequeat......
-
United States Casualty Co. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.
...208 F. Supp. 36 ... UNITED STATES CASUALTY COMPANY ... LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ... Civ. A. No. 30057 ... United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania ... August 29, 1962.208 F ... ...