- 17 -
entirety. She died without having amended the document’s
language or in any way restricted its reach. Such conduct is
reasonably interpreted as implying an intent to direct or control
the property in a manner that conveys more than a de minimis
benefit to the third parties named in the power of appointment.
Hence, the subsequent disclaimer would lack efficacy for State
law purposes, and the relation-back doctrine would not apply.
Moreover, regardless of the validity of decedent’s
disclaimer under State statutes, caselaw indicates that the
relation-back concept is entitled to only limited recognition for
Federal tax purposes. We acknowledge that, as pointed out by the
estate, this Court has relied on the doctrine in determining the
requisite signatory beneficiaries for a valid special use
valuation election under section 2032A. McDonald v.
Commissioner, 89 T.C. 293, 304-305 (1987), affd. in part on this
issue and revd. in part on other grounds 853 F.2d 1494 (8th Cir.
1988).
In McDonald v. Commissioner, supra at 304-305, we held
insufficient an election signed by the original disclaiming
beneficiary, and not the ultimate recipients, of property to
which the election related. We reasoned that the election was
intended to evidence the written consent of those parties
obtaining an interest in the property to be personally liable for
any recapture tax imposed on later disposition or change in use
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011