Estate of Soberdash v. Commissioner

1997 T.C. Memo. 362, 74 T.C.M. 295, 1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 433
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedAugust 6, 1997
DocketDocket No. 23849-95
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1997 T.C. Memo. 362 (Estate of Soberdash 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 Soberdash v. Commissioner, 1997 T.C. Memo. 362, 74 T.C.M. 295, 1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 433 (tax 1997).

Opinion

ESTATE OF ANNA SOBERDASH, DECEASED, WILMA PORADA AND MARY ANN LACEK, CO-EXECUTRICES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Estate of Soberdash v. Commissioner
Docket No. 23849-95
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1997-362; 1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 433; 74 T.C.M. (CCH) 295;
August 6, 1997, Filed

*433 Decision will be entered under Rule 155.

Wilma Porada and Mary Ann Lacek (coexecutrices), for petitioner.
Jeffrey L. Bassin, for respondent.
RUWE

RUWE

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

RUWE, Judge*434 : Respondent determined a deficiency of $ 616,768.49 in petitioner's Federal estate tax. After concessions, the issues for decision are: (1) Whether the value of property in which Anna Soberdash (hereinafter decedent) held a qualified income interest for life and for which a deduction was allowed under section 2056(b) (7)1 to the estate of Andrew J. Soberdash must be included in decedent's gross estate pursuant to *435 section 2044; *436 (2) whether the gross estate should be increased by $ 91,010.91 to include cash equivalents which are not reported on petitioner's Federal estate*437 tax return; and (3) whether the gross estate should be increased by $ 15,927.26 to include income accrued at decedent's death.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts is incorporated herein by this reference. Decedent died on March 10, 1992, while domiciled in Fayette County, Pennsylvania. Her estate is being administered in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County. The coexecutrices of the estate are Wilma Porada and Mary Ann Lacek. At the time of filing the petition, Wilma Porada resided in Parma, Ohio, and Mary Ann Lacek resided in North Royalton, Ohio.

Decedent's husband, Andrew J. Soberdash (hereinafter Andrew), died on November 27, 1982. At the time of his death, they had been married for 48 years.

Article Five of Andrew's will created a*438 trust referred to as the Marital Trust. Article Five (A) (1) of Andrew's will directed the trustees of the Marital Trust to pay the income of the Marital Trust quarterly to decedent or for her benefit during her lifetime. Article Five (A) (1) also authorized the corporate trustee of the Marital Trust in its discretion to pay to decedent or for her benefit such portions of the principal as it deemed advisable, for any purpose or reason whatsoever. Under Andrew's will, no person had a power to appoint any part of the principal of the Marital Trust to any person other than decedent. Article Five (A) (3) of Andrew's will expressed Andrew's intent that decedent's income interest be a qualified income interest for life within the meaning of section 2056 and authorized his executors in their discretion to elect to qualify the principal of the Marital Trust as qualified terminable interest property (QTIP). Article Five (A) (2) of Andrew's will directed the trustees of the Marital Trust to pay to decedent's personal representative the amount necessary to discharge all death taxes resulting from the inclusion of the principal of the Marital Trust in her estate. On the Form 706 estate tax return*439 filed by Andrew's estate, the executors elected to claim a marital deduction for an otherwise nondeductible interest under section 2056 (b) (7) .

The Federal estate tax liability of Andrew's estate was at issue before this Court in docket No. 45668-86. In the decision in docket No. 45668-86, entered on June 9, 1988, the parties stipulated that $ 1,507,881.39 of the assets distributable under Article Five of Andrew's will represented QTIP for which a deduction was allowed under section 2056(b) (7). In docket No. 45668-86, the parties further stipulated that the assets of the Marital Trust which constituted QTIP would be segregated from those assets of the Marital Trust which did not and that the assets which did not constitute QTIP would not be includable in the estate of the surviving spouse.

The $ 1,507,881.39 which qualified for a QTIP deduction under section 2056(b) (7) represented 75.13637 percent of the principal of the Marital Trust, which had a total value of $ 2,006,859.56. On or about September 27, 1989, the executors of Andrew's estate, who were also the trustees of the Marital Trust, filed a Petition to Divide Trust with the Fayette County, Pennsylvania Orphan's Court*440 in order to segregate the QTIP portion of the Marital Trust from the remaining assets, to comply with the Tax Court stipulation. The Petition to Divide Trust was not granted, and the QTIP in the Marital Trust has not been segregated from the remaining assets.

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

Related

Estate of Cavenaugh v. Commissioner
51 F.3d 597 (Fifth Circuit, 1995)
Earle v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
157 F.2d 501 (Sixth Circuit, 1946)
Estate of Cavenaugh v. Commissioner
100 T.C. No. 27 (U.S. Tax Court, 1993)
Earle v. Commissioner
5 T.C. 991 (U.S. Tax Court, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1997 T.C. Memo. 362, 74 T.C.M. 295, 1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-soberdash-v-commissioner-tax-1997.