- 9 -
enough; it must be "adequate and full". Sec. 2053(c)(1)(A). Our
task is to determine whether the underlying claims that resulted
in the settlement payments were based on bona fide agreements
between decedent and David and Daniel Griffith for adequate and
full consideration in money's worth.
David filed a lawsuit against the estate claiming that in
1976 he and decedent had entered into an oral contract, whereby
decedent agreed to give him one-third of her estate in return for
his promise to provide personal and financial services to
decedent for her lifetime. David provided such services from
1976 to 1984. In 1980, decedent executed a will in which she
gave one-third of her estate to David. Decedent subsequently had
a dispute with David, and in 1984 she executed a new will that
eliminated David as a beneficiary.
David's claim that decedent had breached her contract was
litigated, and a jury returned a verdict that would have awarded
him more than $1.5 million. However, during jury deliberations
David and the executors of decedent's estate entered into a
structured settlement agreement, the terms of which were, in
part, dependent on the jury's verdict. Pursuant to the verdict
and the terms of the settlement agreement, the estate paid David
$400,000 in full satisfaction of his claim.
Respondent would have us limit the deduction for David's
claim to $75,000 because that was the jury's determination of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011