Estate of Bruning v. Commissioner

1988 T.C. Memo. 5, 54 T.C.M. 1469, 1988 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 5
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJanuary 4, 1988
DocketDocket No. 4352-86.
StatusUnpublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 1988 T.C. Memo. 5 (Estate of Bruning v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Estate of Bruning v. Commissioner, 1988 T.C. Memo. 5, 54 T.C.M. 1469, 1988 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 5 (tax 1988).

Opinion

ESTATE OF FRANCIS L. BRUNING, DECEASED, ILSE M. BRUNING, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Estate of Bruning v. Commissioner
Docket No. 4352-86.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1988-5; 1988 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 5; 54 T.C.M. (CCH) 1469; T.C.M. (RIA) 88005;
January 4, 1988.

*5 Decedent died testate on April 22, 1982, survived by his wife and three children. On March 2, 1981, decedent had executed a trust agreement and a will which he did not amend or revoke prior to his death. The trust agreement contains a formula marital deduction provision.

Held, the formula marital deduction provision in decedent's will is not a "formula" within the meaning of sec. 403(e)(3), Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, Pub. L. 97-34, 95 Stat. 305. Consequently, that statute does not preclude petitioner from qualifying for an unlimited marital deduction under I.R.C. sec. 2056. Estate of Neisen v. Commissioner,89 T.C. 939 (1987), followed.

Rick Budd, William N. Krems and Benjamin Spitzer, for the petitioner.
Allan E. Lang, for the respondent.

NIMS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

NIMS, Judge: By notice of deficiency dated November 18, 1985, respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal estate tax in the amount of $ 43,167. The only issue presented in this case is whether section 403(e)(3), Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, Pub. L. 97-34, 95 Stat. 305, precludes petitioner from qualifying for an unlimited marital deduction under section 2056. 1

The parties submitted this case fully stipulated. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference.

Petitioner is*7 the Estate of Francis L. Bruning, Ilse M. Bruning, Personal Representative. At the time the petition in this case was filed, petitioner's legal address was in Longmont, Colorado.

On March 2, 1981, Francis L. Bruning (hereinafter referred to as decedent), executed the Trust Agreement of the Francis L. Bruning Trust (hereinafter referred to as the trust). On the same day decedent executed his will.

Decedent died on April 22, 1982, without having made amendments to the trust or codicils to the will. Decedent was survived by his spouse and three children.

Under the terms of decedent's will, the residue of his estate was distributable to the trust after payment of expenses and taxes. At the time of decedent's death, the assets distributable to the trust under the will had already been transferred to the trust.

The trust contains the following provision:

Section 1. Division of Trust. If Settlor's spouse survives Settlor, the Trustee shall divide the remaining trust property into two separate trusts. One such trust shall be designated as the Marital Trust and shall consist of the lesser of (1) an amount equal in value to the maximum marital deduction allowable in the federal*8 estate tax proceeding relating to Settlor's estate, or (2) the amount which, after taking into account all credits, exemptions and deductions, other than the marital deduction, which are available to Settlor's estate for federal estate tax purposes, will result in the elimination of all federal estate tax in Settlor's estate; provided, however, the amount passing to the Marital Trust shall be reduced by the total value of any property or interest which qualifies for the marital deduction and which passes to Settlor's spouse other than under this Article. The balance of the trust property shall be allocated to a separate trust and shall be designated as the Family Trust.

To date, Colorado, the state where decedent resided at the time of his death, has not enacted any statute construing formula marital deduction clauses with respect to the provisions of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, Pub. L. 97-34, 95 Stat. 305 (hereinafter referred to as ERTA).

An estate tax return was timely filed on behalf of petitioner reflecting an adjusted gross estate of $ 706,862 and claiming a marital deduction of $ 481,862. In his notice of deficiency, respondent determined that petitioner's maximum*9 marital deduction was limited to one-half of the gross estate, or $ 353,431, and he disallowed $ 128,431 of the deduction. Respondent takes the position that section 403(e)(3) of ERTA precludes petitioner from qualifying for an unlimited marital deduction under section 2056.

Under section 2056(c), as in effect on the day decedent executed the Trust Agreement and his will (March 2, 1981), the maximum estate tax marital deduction was limited to the greater of $ 250,000 or 50 percent of the value of the adjusted gross estate. This section was repealed by section 403(a)(1)(a) of ERTA, the effect of which was to permit an unlimited marital deduction for estates of decedents dying after December 31, 1981. However, Congress was concerned that this change in the law might also change the intended effect of provisions in wills that were executed before the passage of ERTA.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Estate of Nix v. Commissioner
1996 T.C. Memo. 109 (U.S. Tax Court, 1996)
Estate of Higgins v. Commissioner
1991 T.C. Memo. 47 (U.S. Tax Court, 1991)
Estate of Kendall v. Commissioner
1990 T.C. Memo. 547 (U.S. Tax Court, 1990)
Estate of Levitt v. Commissioner
95 T.C. No. 22 (U.S. Tax Court, 1990)
Estate of Blair v. Commissioner
1988 T.C. Memo. 296 (U.S. Tax Court, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1988 T.C. Memo. 5, 54 T.C.M. 1469, 1988 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-bruning-v-commissioner-tax-1988.