Waldrup v. United States, GC 79-97-WK-P.
Decision Date | 15 September 1980 |
Docket Number | No. GC 79-97-WK-P.,GC 79-97-WK-P. |
Citation | 499 F. Supp. 820 |
Parties | Charles E. WALDRUP, Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Marion T. Waldrup, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi |
Robert Lawson Holladay, Drew, Miss., for plaintiff.
William D. M. Holmes, Dept. Justice, Washington, D. C., H. M. Ray, U. S. Atty., Oxford, Miss., for defendant.
This action was instituted by Charles E. Waldrup, Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Marion T. Waldrup, Sr., deceased, against the United States of America, seeking the refund of federal estate taxes in the amount of $12,850.62, together with interest and attorney's fees. Plaintiff has moved for summary judgment on the basis of stipulated facts, exhibits and uncontradicted affidavits, which we hereby set forth as our findings of fact.
On April 18, 1976, Marion T. Waldrup, Sr. died testate and was survived by his widow, Rosie Lee Waldrup, three sons, and a daughter. Mr. Waldrup's will provided as follows:
On July 20, 1976, Rosie Lee Waldrup filed a petition for Widow's Allowance, Construction of the Will and Payment of Rental in the Chancery Court of Sunflower County, Mississippi. In her petition, Mrs. Waldrup states that she is entitled to a widow's allowance in the amount of $6,600.00, the funds in a Golden Savings Account in the Merchants and Planters Bank in Drew, Mississippi, bearing account number XXXXXXX and any other funds in accounts bearing the name of M. T. Waldrup alone and in accounts in the names of M. T. Waldrup and Rosie Waldrup, and $4,800.00 representing the income from farm lands for the year 1976 as provided in Item III of M. T. Waldrup's will. Mrs. Waldrup also filed a renunciation of the will1 on July 20, 1976 although a copy of this document, if indeed there be one, is not before the court.
On August 26, 1976, Mrs. Waldrup executed a written agreement with the other estate beneficiaries whereby she received the following property:
The value of these properties totals $93,484.78. In exchange for these properties Mrs. Waldrup agreed to transfer 640 acres of land in Sunflower County and to relinquish any and all claims against the estate of M. T. Waldrup. By uncontradicted affidavit of R. C. McBee, the attorney who represented Mrs. Waldrup in the filing of her petition, this settlement agreement was entered into after "an extended time of arms length negotiations" between the parties who were "highly adverse" and represented by separate counsel. P. J. Townsend, Jr., who represented the children and estate of M. T. Waldrup during the period of settlement negotiations, also states by affidavit that the settlement was based on Mrs. Waldrup's valid claims against the will and that "the controversy was between genuinely adverse claimants."
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined that the taxable estate of M. T. Waldrup was $215,426.02 and allowed a marital deduction of $46,928.55. On December 1, 1978, plaintiff filed his claim for refund of estate taxes with the Director of Internal Revenue Service wherein plaintiff demanded that an estate tax refund be allowed in the original principal sum of $12,850.62, together with interest, attorney's fees and costs.3
Plaintiff maintains that the total marital deduction should have amounted to $93,484.78, the value of properties received under the settlement agreement. The United States contends that the estate is not entitled to a refund since the proper marital deduction of one-fifth of the distributive estate, which amounts to $57,198.47, minus one-fifth of the applicable estate taxes of $10,416.40, for a total marital deduction of only $46,482.07, was allowed in the first instance.
In computing a decedent's estate for estate tax purposes, 26 U.S.C. § 2056 allows a marital deduction in an amount not to exceed one-half of the value of the adjusted gross estate or $250,000.00, whichever is greater, for property which passes or has passed to decedent's surviving spouse. To qualify as a marital deduction, the property interest must have passed from the decedent to his spouse, must be a deductible interest, and must be a non-terminable interest. While simple in concept, the estate marital deduction "has become more complex with each encrusting precedent." Citizens & Southern Nat'l Bank v. United States, 451 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir. 1971). The issue present in this case is whether the interest acquired by Mrs. Waldrup under the settlement agreement "passed" to her from the decedent.
The tax regulations provide our starting point. The applicable provisions are as follows:
26 CFR § 20.2056(e)-2(d)(1) & (2). Therefore, the regulations clearly provide that the interests surrendered by Mrs. Waldrup, i. e., her widow's allowance, her right to claim a child's share in the property by renouncing the will, and all bequests under the will not retained by her under the settlement agreement, are irrelevant in a determination of the estate marital deduction. Id. at (d)(1). The Fifth Circuit has recognized that the amount of the marital deduction, in situations such as this, is to be determined by the value of the property actually received under the settlement agreement, "and not as to the value of the property s...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davies v. U.S., No. Civ. 00-137-P-DMC.
...irrelevant. For this proposition, the Trust relies heavily on Regulation c-2 and on a 1980 district court decision, Waldrup v. United States, 499 F.Supp. 820 (N.D.Miss.1980). SJ Opposition at The Trust points out that, per Regulation c-2, interests surrendered by a surviving spouse in a wil......
-
Schroeder v. US
...ways: (1) as having "passed" from the decedent to the surviving spouse; and (2) as "deductible" interests. See Waldrup v. United States, 499 F.Supp. 820, 823 (N.D. Miss.1980); Treas. Reg. § 20.2056(a)-1(b) (as amended in 1986). The first characterization, passing, is of primary concern At b......
-
Estate of Warren v. C.I.R.
...have concluded that Bosch does not vitiate the significance of bona fide adversarial settlements. See Waldrup v. United States, 499 F.Supp. 820, 824 n. 4 (N.D.Miss.1980); but see Estate of Brandon v. C.I.R., 828 F.2d 493, 499 (8th Cir.1987) (marital deduction case; Bosch applies to good fai......
-
ESTATE OF SIKLER v. Commissioner
...USTC ¶ 12,177, 321 F. 2d 908 (2d Cir. 1963), cert. denied 376 U.S. 937 (1964); Waldrup v. United States 80-2 USTC ¶ 13,368, 499 F. Supp. 820 (N.D. Miss. 1980); Pastor v. United States 75-1 USTC ¶ 13,045, 386 F. Supp. 106 (E.D.N.Y. On its reply brief the petitioner makes an attempt to distin......