Weyenberg v. United States, Civ. A. No. 6141.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
Writing for the CourtGRUBB
Citation135 F. Supp. 299
PartiesFrank L. WEYENBERG and The First Wisconsin Trust Company, a Wisconsin corporation, as co-trustees u/w Sylvester A. Weyenberg, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant.
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 6141.
Decision Date27 October 1955

135 F. Supp. 299

Frank L. WEYENBERG and The First Wisconsin Trust Company, a Wisconsin corporation, as co-trustees u/w Sylvester A. Weyenberg, Deceased, Plaintiffs,
v.
The UNITED STATES, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 6141.

United States District Court E. D. Wisconsin.

October 27, 1955.


135 F. Supp. 300

John S. Best and Roy C. LaBudde, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiffs.

Edward G. Minor, U. S. Atty., Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant.

GRUBB, District Judge.

This is a suit for refund of Federal estate taxes paid by plaintiffs as co-executors of the will of Sylvester A. Weyenberg, deceased. Most of the facts were stipulated by the parties for trial before the Court.

The decedent died on June 29, 1949, in Waukesha County, Wisconsin. He left surviving him a widow and two sons. The widow was not the mother of the sons, one of whom was a minor and the other an incompetent during the period here material.

The will admitted to probate contained no provision for the surviving widow. Under Wisconsin Statutes, § 233.14, the widow elected to take a statutory one-third share of her husband's net personal estate. In the proceedings had before the County Court the widow was represented by an attorney as were the co-executors, and the two sons were represented by a guardian ad litem who was an attorney. By an order dated May 16, 1950, the County Court of Waukesha County, Wisconsin, determined the widow's share to be one-third of the estate unreduced by Federal estate taxes. That portion of the estate assigned to the widow was actually distributed to her by the executors. No appeal or other proceeding for review of the final decree was commenced within the time limited by Wisconsin law for an appeal.

The plaintiffs as executors filed a Federal estate tax return based on two-thirds of the decedent's residuary estate. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined that there was a deficiency in the Federal estate tax return of $2,530.50 due to the fact that the County Court had not reduced the widow's share of the estate by Federal estate taxes before distributing such share to the widow. The executors paid the deficiency and now sue for a refund of $7,486.05.

In the proceeding before the County Court, the question of whether the widow's one-third share of the net personal estate of the deceased should be determined before or after the impact of Federal estate taxes was never discussed with the County Judge either in open court or in chambers. However, the guardian ad litem testified that he understood the duties of a guardian ad litem; that he understood that his wards' interests were adverse to those of the widow; that he understood that there was an issue as to who was to bear the impact of the Federal estate tax; that that issue was raised and discussed in conferences between himself and the attorneys

135 F. Supp. 301
for the widow and the executors before the final decree; that the amount of the shares to be distributed was also discussed in those conferences; that the law concerning the impact of Federal taxation on the marital deduction was presumed to be fairly clear and he was satisfied that the conclusion reached among the attorneys was the law; that he knew he had an obligation to raise an objection before the court if such conclusion were not correct; and that he knew that the Federal estate tax would be borne by his wards

The question presented to the Court in this case is whether the decree of the County Court giving the widow an amount equal to one-third of the residuary estate unreduced by Federal estate taxes is to be given conclusive effect taxwise by the Federal taxing authorities.

The statute under construction is Section 812 of Title 26 U.S.C.A., which provides:

"For the purpose of the tax the value of the net estate shall be determined, in the case of a citizen or resident of the United States by deducting from the value of the gross estate —
* * * * * *
"(e) Bequests, etc., to surviving spouse
"(1) Allowance of marital deduction
"(A) In general. An amount equal to the value of any interest in property which passes or has passed from the decedent to his surviving spouse, but only to the extent that such interest is included in determining the value of the gross estate.
* * * * * *
"(E) Valuation of interest passing to surviving spouse. In determining for the purposes of subparagraph (A) the value of any interest in property passing to the surviving spouse for which a deduction is allowed by this subsection —
"(i) there shall be taken into account the effect which a tax imposed by this chapter, or any estate, succession, legacy, or inheritance tax, has upon the net value to the surviving spouse of such interest; * * *."

Regulation 105, Section 81.47c contains the following explanatory information concerning 812(e):

"(c) Effect of Death Taxes. Section 812(e) (1) (E) provides that in the determination of the value of any property interest which passed from the decedent to his surviving spouse, there shall be taken into account the effect which the federal estate tax, or any estate, succession, legacy, or inheritance tax, has upon the net value to the surviving spouse of such property interest.
* * * * * *
"If the decedent
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Second National Bank of New Haven v. United States, Civ. No. 9435.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • July 25, 1963
    ...163 F.Supp. 542, 545-546 (W.D. Mo.1958); Stackpole v. Granger, 136 F. Supp. 382, 387-388 (W.D.Pa.1955); Weyenberg v. United States, 135 F.Supp. 299, 302-303 44 Daine v. Commissioner, supra note 38. 45 McHarg v. Fitzpatrick, supra note 39. 46 In a letter to the Court dated January 15, 1963, ......
  • Gowling's Estate, In re, No. 52841
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • September 29, 1980
    ...National Bank v. United States (D.Kan. 1964), 233 F.Supp. 19, 27-29 (applying Kansas law); Weyenberg v. United States (E.D.Wis. 1955), 135 F.Supp. 299, 303 (applying Wisconsin law); Byars v. Mixon (1974), 292 Ala. 657, 659-60, 299 So.2d 259, 260-61; In re Estate of Marks (1974), 129 N.J.Sup......
  • Estate of Whipple v. United States, No. 19199.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • December 11, 1969
    ...1965); Pitts v. Hamrick, supra; First Nat'l Bank of Topeka v. United States, 233 F.Supp. 19 (D.Kan.1964); Weyenberg v. United States, 135 F.Supp. 299 (E.D. Wis.1955). But see Thompson v. Wiseman, 233 F.2d 734 (10th Cir. Kentucky does not have an apportionment statute but follows the doctrin......
  • ESTATE OF GRACE MOUAT, Docket No. 3156-62.
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • October 27, 1964
    ...672, 675 (1938); Estate of Herman Hohensee, Sr. Dec. 21,630, 25 T. C. 1258, 1264 (1956); Weyenberg v. United States 55-2 USTC ¶ 11,572, 135 F. Supp. 299, 302 (D. C. E. D. Wis. 1955). See also United States v. Goodson, supra; Annot. 37 A. L. R. 2d 176 23 TCM (CCH) 1719 Some states, either by......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Second National Bank of New Haven v. United States, Civ. No. 9435.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • July 25, 1963
    ...163 F.Supp. 542, 545-546 (W.D. Mo.1958); Stackpole v. Granger, 136 F. Supp. 382, 387-388 (W.D.Pa.1955); Weyenberg v. United States, 135 F.Supp. 299, 302-303 44 Daine v. Commissioner, supra note 38. 45 McHarg v. Fitzpatrick, supra note 39. 46 In a letter to the Court dated January 15, 1963, ......
  • Gowling's Estate, In re, No. 52841
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • September 29, 1980
    ...National Bank v. United States (D.Kan. 1964), 233 F.Supp. 19, 27-29 (applying Kansas law); Weyenberg v. United States (E.D.Wis. 1955), 135 F.Supp. 299, 303 (applying Wisconsin law); Byars v. Mixon (1974), 292 Ala. 657, 659-60, 299 So.2d 259, 260-61; In re Estate of Marks (1974), 129 N.J.Sup......
  • Estate of Whipple v. United States, No. 19199.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • December 11, 1969
    ...1965); Pitts v. Hamrick, supra; First Nat'l Bank of Topeka v. United States, 233 F.Supp. 19 (D.Kan.1964); Weyenberg v. United States, 135 F.Supp. 299 (E.D. Wis.1955). But see Thompson v. Wiseman, 233 F.2d 734 (10th Cir. Kentucky does not have an apportionment statute but follows the doctrin......
  • ESTATE OF GRACE MOUAT, Docket No. 3156-62.
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • October 27, 1964
    ...672, 675 (1938); Estate of Herman Hohensee, Sr. Dec. 21,630, 25 T. C. 1258, 1264 (1956); Weyenberg v. United States 55-2 USTC ¶ 11,572, 135 F. Supp. 299, 302 (D. C. E. D. Wis. 1955). See also United States v. Goodson, supra; Annot. 37 A. L. R. 2d 176 23 TCM (CCH) 1719 Some states, either by......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT