Silvey v. United States

265 F. Supp. 235, 19 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1796, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9663
District Court, N.D. Alabama·Decided December 27, 1966·No. Civ. A. 63-221·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LYNNE, Chief Judge.

The facts were fully stipulated by the parties. Gordon E. Silvey (the decedent) died on January 16, 1957, leaving a last will and testament, 1 dated July 17, 1947, wherein Willie Warren Silvey (plaintiff, executrix or Mrs. Silvey), the decedent’s surviving spouse, was named as a beneficiary and as executrix. Such will was duly admitted to probate by the Probate Court of Etowah County, Alabama, and on January 24, 1957, letters testamentary were issued to plaintiff.

Contending that the Commissioner erred in reducing the amount of the marital deduction claimed by her on the federal estate tax return and in disallowing the claim for refund of the deficiency and interest resulting therefrom, plaintiff insists that the interest in the property which passed to her under decedent’s will was a nonterminable interest within the meaning of section 2056 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

That the provisions of Items Three and Four of the will, standing alone, create in the surviving spouse a defeasible fee simple (or “qualified,” “determinable,” or “base” fee) is demon *237 strated by the opinion of this court, after canvassing pertinent Alabama authorities, in Robertson v. United States, 199 F.Supp. 78 (N.D.Ala.1961), reversed on another ground, 310 F.2d 199 (5th Cir. 1962). Thus the interest passing to Mrs. Silvey does not qualify for the marital deduction unless it falls within one of the exceptions to the terminal interest rule.

Clearly such interest does not fit into the exception contained in section 2056(b) (3). 2 According to the terms of the will, Mrs. Silvey’s death prior to the probate of the will would have terminated the interest bequeathed to her. Since the will could have been filed for probate within a period of five years from the date of the testator’s death, Code of Ala., tit. 61, § 34 (Recompiled 1958), there existed at the time of his death a possible contingency that Mrs. Silvey might survive the decedent by more than six months and die thereafter before the will was probated. This possible contingency defeats the exception. Frederick v. Commissioner, decided April 20, 1962 (21 T.C.M. 480, 483).

“ * * * an interest passing to the surviving spouse shall not be considered as an interest which will terminate or fail on the death of such spouse if— (A) such death will cause a termination or failure of such interest only if it occurs within a period not exceeding 6 months after the decedent’s death * * *; and (B) such termination or failure does not in fact occur.” (Emphasis added.)

The remaining exception to the terminable interest rule deserving of comment 3 is embodied in section 2056(b) (5). 4 In substance, it provides that where less than an absolute interest passes from a decedent to his surviving spouse with income payable to the spouse for life and with power in the surviving spouse to appoint the entire interest to herself or her estate, the interest shall not be considered a terminable interest, provided the power in the surviving spouse is exercisable by the surviving spouse alone and in all events.

There is no language in this will which will support an inference that the testator intended to invest Mrs. Silvey, acting alone and in all events, with the power to appoint the entire interest to herself or her estate. Cf. Robertson v. United States, 310 F.2d 199 (5th Cir. 1962). Indeed, the repeated requirement that she survive the testator to the date of the probate of the will, without more, is a complete negation of such power.

The probate of wills in Alabama is a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Probate Court. Ex Parte Russell, 239 Ala. 641, 196 So. 718 *238 (1940). It cannot be accomplished unilaterally by a designated representative. Allen v. Pugh, 206 Ala. 10, 89 So. 470 (1921). Assuming, arguendo, that Mrs. Silvey had the exclusive right to offer the will for probate and thereafter to letters testamentary, to equate this right with the power to appoint the entire interest to herself or her estate exercisable by herself alone or in all events without the intervention of the Probate Court would be to perform an act of judicial alchemy which this court expressly rejected in Robertson v. United States, supra.

Judgment is due to be entered for defendant.

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

Silvey v. United States, 265 F. Supp. 235, 19 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1796, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9663 (N.D. Ala. 1966).

265 F. Supp. 235 (Silvey v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Estate of Shepherd v. Commissioner
1989 T.C. Memo. 610 (U.S. Tax Court, 1989)
Estate of Bagley v. United States
318 F. Supp. 765 (M.D. Florida, 1970)
Estate of Ray v. Commissioner
54 T.C. 1170 (U.S. Tax Court, 1970)
Estate of Fried v. Commissioner
54 T.C. 805 (U.S. Tax Court, 1970)