- 15 -
allowance for her support and maintenance payable from
his estate. The Supreme Court held that because the
widow’s allowance arose from a right under state law
which had not vested in her as of her husband’s date of
death, it could not be included as part of the marital
deduction because it did not meet the definition of any
counter-exception to the rule that terminable interests
are to be included in the taxable estate. Jackson at
507, 84 S.Ct. at 871-72. In the instant case, the
decedent used an estate planning device unknown when
Jackson was decided--the QTIP counter-exception to the
terminable interest rule. Because the Jackson court
ruled on the proper determination date for an interest
which is not an exception to the terminal interest
rule, and not subject to a later election, we do not
think it is dispositive of this issue. [Estate of
Spencer v. Commissioner, 43 F.3d at 231.]
Petitioner argues that, because at the time of his death
decedent was a resident of the State of Arkansas, the Eighth
Circuit would have venue for an appeal of the instant case
(absent stipulation to the contrary). Accordingly, petitioner
contends that, pursuant to Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742
(1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971), the Eighth Circuit’s
decision in Estate of Robertson v. Commissioner, supra, is
controlling and that we should therefore hold for petitioner.
Respondent argues that, because at the time of filing the
petition in the instant case the individual co-executor of
decedent's estate was a resident of the State of Wisconsin and
the corporate co-executor had its principal place of business in
that State, venue for an appeal of the instant case would lie to
the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which has not
addressed the QTIP issue presented in the instant case, and,
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011