- 13 -
of mismanagement and waste of the Trust assets by the trustee".
Id. In fact, the taxpayer's attorney in the lawsuit testified
that "a goal of his law firm was to 'get what was considered a
fair administration of the trust to those people who were
intended to be the beneficiaries of the trust'". Id.
The belief that the trust in Estate of Kincaid was being
mismanaged to the detriment of the taxpayer's interest as income
beneficiary was the origin of the claims made in the lawsuit, and
we so found, holding that the expenses were deductible for the
management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for the
production of income under section 212. See id.
In the case before us, however, it is clear that the lawsuit
had nothing to do with alleged abuses in the administration of
the Trust. In fact, the lawsuit was a direct attack on the
validity of the Trust. Garland's claims--undue influence, lack
of capacity, conversion, fraud, etc.--were all alternate theories
to invalidate the Trust and gain a larger share of his father's
estate. Each claim for relief was based on allegations that Mr.
Stevens was mentally incompetent and that petitioner caused,
induced, deluded, misled, forced, and/or otherwise unduly
influenced Mr. Stevens to execute the Trust. None of the claims
included allegations of mismanagement or waste of Trust assets,
or diversion of Trust income.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011