Estate of Wayne-Chi Young, Deceased, Tsai-Hsiu Hsu Yang, Executrix - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         

               In determining the binding or persuasive effect of State               
          court decrees on Federal courts, interpreting the application of            
          State law, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that where State              
          law governs the ownership of property (as here), the State's                
          highest court is the best authority on its own law.  Commissioner           
          v. Estate of Bosch, 387 U.S. 456, 465 (1967) (citing Erie R. Co.            
          v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)).  A Federal court in a Federal             
          estate tax controversy is not conclusively bound by a State trial           
          court's adjudication.  Id.  The ruling of an intermediate                   
          appellate State court is not to be disregarded by a Federal court           
          unless it is considered that the State's highest court would                
          decide otherwise.  Id.  If there is no decision by the State's              
          highest court, the Federal court must do the best it can to                 
          discern what such State's highest court would decide.  Id.;                 
          Estate of Rowan v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 633, 636-639 (1970).               
               While a hearing occurred in regard to the petition, only the           
          final order was submitted into evidence in regard to the                    
          California Superior Court's basis for its determination.  Without           
          other evidence, we cannot rule out that respondent, if present at           
          the California Court, would have prevailed in opposing                      
          petitioner's petition that the property was community property.             
          See Estate of Rowan v. Commissioner, supra at 638.  The evidence            
          before us does not show that the proceeding in the Superior Court           
          was a bona fide, adversarial litigation.  Therefore, we conclude            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011