Estate of Higgins v. Commissioner

91 T.C. No. 7, 91 T.C. 61, 1988 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 91
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJuly 19, 1988
DocketDocket No. 11431-86
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 91 T.C. No. 7 (Estate of Higgins 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 Higgins v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. No. 7, 91 T.C. 61, 1988 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 91 (tax 1988).

Opinion

FEATHERSTON, Judge:

Respondent determined a deficiency in the Federal estate tax of the Estate of John T. Higgins in the amount of $185,813.46. The issue for determination is whether the personal representative of the estate made a valid qualified terminable interest property election under section 2056(b)(7).1

FINDINGS OF FACT

Manufacturers National Bank of Detroit (the bank), is the personal representative of the Estate of John T. Higgins. Its principal office at the time of the filing of the petition was in Detroit, Michigan.

John T. Higgins (hereinafter Higgins or decedent), a retired attorney, died on April 29, 1982, survived by his wife, Margaretta Higgins. Higgins had been a partner in the Detroit, Michigan, law firm of Higgins, Starrs & MacDonell.

Twenty-seven days prior to his death, Higgins executed a will naming his former law partner, John R. Starrs (Starrs), as personal representative. Relevant to this case, article seven of decedent’s will read as follows:

SEVENTH: Should my beloved wife, MARGARETTA C. HIGGINS, survive me by thirty days, I give and bequeath all the rest and residue of my estate unto my Trustee, hereafter named, to invest and reinvest the assets thereof, to collect the income therefrom, to pay the taxes and expenses of maintenance and administration thereof and to pay the net income therefrom to or for the account of my beloved wife, MARGARETTA C. HIGGINS, in monthly or other convenient installments (but not less often than annually) during her lifetime. If, in the opinion of my Trustee, considering income available to my beloved wife from all other sources, my said beloved wife, MARGARETTA C. HIGGINS, shall, by reason of illness, accident or misfortune, stand in need of funds for medical, surgical, dental, hospital or nursing expenses, or expenses of invalidism or convalescence, my Trustee is authorized to invade principal to the extent necessary to meet such need or needs. This power of invasion shall be continuous and shall not be exhausted by use.

Paragraph 8 specified that, upon the death of Higgins’ spouse, the remaining trust assets be paid to three qualified educational institutions as follows: 10 percent to Manhattanville College, 10 percent to the Academy of the Sacred Heart, and 80 percent to the University of Notre Dame Du Lac.

The will was admitted to probate and Starrs was appointed personal representative of the estate by order of the Oakland County Probate Court, Pontiac, Michigan, dated June 22, 1982. Starrs died on October 20, 1984, and the bank succeeded him as personal representative of the estate by order of the Oakland County Probate Court, dated January 2, 1985.

The law firm of Higgins, Starrs & MacDonell prepared a June 1982 version of a Form 706, U.S. Federal Estate Tax Return, for the estate. Both Starrs, as personal representative of the estate, and Robert MacDonell, as preparer of the Form 706, signed the return.

Starrs filed the return with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on January 28, 1983. On page 2 of the return the following question was answered negatively: “Do you elect to claim a marital deduction for an otherwise nondeductible interest under section 2056(b)(7)?” Attached to the return was a letter written by Starrs explaining the computations for determining the value of the marital and charitable deductions taken on the return. The letter stated in pertinent part:

Sirs:

A computation indicating how we determined the value of the marital' deduction and the charitable deduction (the trust remainder to the
charities being Hable for the taxes) in the above matter follows.
a. Gross estate, Hne 1 of recapitulation 1,410,000.36
b. Deductions to arrive at residue:
1. Schedules J & K 129,267.25
2. Cash gifts from par. 3 of will 39,000.00
3. Securities gifts, pars. 4 & 5 of will 358,725.00
4. Paintings, gifts by par. 6 of will 60,000.00
5. Schedule E gifts to spouse, not probated 130,113.02 717,105.27
c. Presumed value of probate residue 692,895.09
Decedent’s spouse, Margaretta C. Higgins, was born December 28, 1902. At the time of decedent’s death, April 29, 1982, she was 79 years of age. By the Michigan Hfe expectancy tables, she has 6.21 years, which, multipHed by the 5 percent factor, equals 31.05 percent. Hence the value of her interest in the residue of the estate appears to be 31.05 percent of $692,895.09, or $215,143.93. To get this figure we add the figure ($130,113.02) from Schedule E in order to get the total for Schedule M of $345,256.95.
The charitable/educational institutions who are the remaindermen after the death of the Hfe tenant would, as we see it, have their interest in the probate estate figured at 68.95 percent (100 percent minus the spouse’s interest of 31.05 percent) of $692,895.09, or $477,751.16, to which would be added the gift of paintings from par. 6 ($60,000.00) for a total charitable gift of $537,751.16, subject to being reduced (on the 706) for the estate and inheritance taxes. The Michigan State Inheritance Tax of $51,340.00 has already been paid and the receipt is attached to the Estate Tax Return. We estimated the Federal Estate Tax at $96,000 for purposes of Schedule O, thus reducing the available aHowable deductions to $390,411.16.

On Schedule M, Bequests, etc., to Surviving Spouse (the marital deduction), attached to petitioner’s Form 706, the estate claimed that property passed to Margaretta Higgins in the amount of $345,256.95, $130,113.02 attributable to her interest as a surviving joint tenant of assets listed in Schedule E 2 and $215,143.93 attributable to her life income interest in the residual trust established under paragraph 7 of decedent’s will. The estate did not designate that any of the property listed on Schedule M was qualified terminable interest property.

On Schedule O, Charitable, Public, and Similar Gifts and Bequests (the charitable deduction), petitioner showed three educational institutions receiving the net amount of $390,411.16, $60,000 in cash and $330,411.16 attributable to the trust remainder established under paragraph 8 of Higgins’ will.

In the notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed $215,143.93 of the claimed marital deduction because the life income interest passing to decedent’s spouse will terminate or fail upon the death of decedent’s spouse, and because it has not been established that an election was made to treat any portion of the property passing to decedent’s surviving spouse as qualified terminable interest property (QTIP).

Respondent further disallowed $330,411.16 of the claimed charitable deduction because the remainder interest passing to the educational organizations was in the form of a split-interest trust, not in the form of a charitable remainder annuity trust, a charitable remainder unitrust, or a pooled income fund. See sec. 2055.

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

Related

Bahas v. Comm'r
2010 T.C. Summary Opinion 115 (U.S. Tax Court, 2010)
Estate of Morgens v. Comm'r
133 T.C. No. 17 (U.S. Tax Court, 2009)
Estate of Davis v. Comm'r
2003 T.C. Memo. 55 (U.S. Tax Court, 2003)
Estate of Clack v. Commissioner
106 T.C. No. 6 (U.S. Tax Court, 1996)
DePaoli v. Commissioner
1993 T.C. Memo. 577 (U.S. Tax Court, 1993)
Estate of Bennett v. Commissioner
100 T.C. No. 5 (U.S. Tax Court, 1993)
Estate of Spencer v. Commissioner
1992 T.C. Memo. 579 (U.S. Tax Court, 1992)
Estate of Robertson v. Commissioner
98 T.C. No. 47 (U.S. Tax Court, 1992)
Estate of Clayton v. Commissioner
97 T.C. No. 22 (U.S. Tax Court, 1991)
Estate of McCants v. Commissioner
1991 T.C. Memo. 90 (U.S. Tax Court, 1991)
Estate of Kyle v. Commissioner
94 T.C. No. 52 (U.S. Tax Court, 1990)
Estate of Nicholson v. Commissioner
94 T.C. No. 39 (U.S. Tax Court, 1990)
Estate of Bowling v. Commissioner
93 T.C. No. 26 (U.S. Tax Court, 1989)
Estate of Higgins v. Commissioner
91 T.C. No. 7 (U.S. Tax Court, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 T.C. No. 7, 91 T.C. 61, 1988 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-higgins-v-commissioner-tax-1988.