Siegel v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Siegel)
Decision Date | 12 January 1977 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 1481-74. |
Citation | 67 T.C. 662 |
Parties | ESTATE OF DAVID A. SIEGEL, LEONARD J. SIEGEL, EXECUTOR, CHARLOTTE HELWEIL, EXECUTRIX, PETITIONER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT |
Court | U.S. Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Decedent and his wife executed mutual wills containing certain language of a nature that would contractually bind them to dispose of their collective estate in a specified manner. Held: Under New York law, the independent contractual language contained in the wills created a contract which was binding upon the survivor. The interest received by the surviving spouse by virtue of the decedent's will was therefore terminable within the meaning of sec. 2056(b)(1), I.R.C. 1954, and fails to qualify for the martial deduction. Estate of Edward N. Opal, 54 T.C. 154 (1970), affd. 450 F.2d 1085 (2d Cir. 1971), followed. Barry D. Gordon, for the petitioner.
Walter C. Welsh, for the respondent.
Respondent determined a deficiency of $26,048.38 in the Federal estate tax of the petitioner, the Estate of David A. Siegel. Due to concessions,1 the sole issue remaining for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to a marital deduction under section 2056(a)2 for the value of the interest in property which decedent's surviving spouse received by virtue of his will.
Certain facts were stipulated and are so found.
David A. Siegel (hereinafter referred to as David or the decedent) died testate in New York on September 9, 1970. He was survived by his wife, Mildred Siegel (hereinafter referred to as Mildred), his adult son, Leonard J. Siegel, and his adult daughter, Charlotte Helweil. Leonard resided at New York, N.Y., and Charlotte resided at Roslyn, N.Y., at the time of the filing of the petition herein, and they are the executor and executrix of the Estate of David A. Siegel.
On December 4, 1962, David and Mildred executed mutual wills before the same witnesses after approximately 38 years of marriage. Some of the pertinent provisions of the decedent's will are as follows:
I, DAVID A. SIEGEL, residing in Kings County, State of New York, do hereby revoke all Wills and Codicils, as well as all other instruments of a testamentary nature heretofore made by me, and do hereby make, publish and declare this to be my Last Will and Testament in manner and form following:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have on the 4th day of December, 1962, signed, sealed, published and declared the foregoing instrument as and for my Last Will and Testament, in the presence of each and all of the subscribing witnesses whom I have requested in the presence of each of the others, to subscribe his name, with his address, as an attesting witness, in my presence, and in the presence of the others.
Some of the pertinent provisions of Mildred J. Siegel's will are as follows:
I, MILDRED J. SIEGEL, residing in Kings County, State of New York, do hereby revoke all Wills and Codicils, as well as all other instruments of a testamentary nature heretofore made by me, and do hereby make, publish and declare this to be my Last Will and Testament in manner and form following:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have on the 4th day of December, 1962, signed, sealed, published and declared the foregoing instrument as and for my Last Will and Testament in the presence of each and all of the subscribing witnesses, whom I have requested in the presence of each of the others, to subscribe his name, with his address, as an attesting witness in my presence and in the presence of the others.
Following David's death, his will was probated in the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, N.Y. Mildred has not executed a will subsequent to the one executed on December 4, 1962.
On its Federal estate tax return which was timely filed, the estate claimed a marital deduction in the amount of $138,065.82, which represented one-half of the adjusted gross estate. Respondent disallowed a portion of that deduction in the amount of $88,726.51, based on his determination that Mildred's interest in such portion was terminable.
OPINIONThe issue presented is whether petitioner is entitled to a marital deduction under section 2056 for the value of the interest in property which decedent's surviving spouse received by virtue of his will.
In deciding this question, we must first look to the law of New York to determine whether the decedent's will provided Mildred a fee simple or merely a life estate in the property passing under it. Estate of Julius Selling, 24 T.C. 191 (1955). Under such law, the nature of the estate received by Mildred depends upon whether the mutual wills executed by the decedent and Mildred on December 4, 1962, created a contract which was binding on the survivor. 3 Edison v. Parsons...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jacobs' Estate, Matter of, 77-162
...N.Y.2d 228, 278 N.Y.S.2d 845, 225 N.E.2d 540 (1967); DiLorenzo v. Ciancio, 80 Misc.2d 193, 362 N.Y.S.2d 939 (1974); and Estate of David A. Siegel, 67 T.C. 662 (1977) (construing New York law). Other cases have used the analogy of a trust created during the survivor's lifetime. Rastetter v. ......