- 67 -
gross estate, a decedent may at least control
disposition of one-half of his estate and still
maximize current tax benefits. However, unless certain
interests which do not grant the spouse total control
are eligible for the unlimited marital deduction, a
decedent would be forced to choose between surrendering
control of the entire estate to avoid imposition of
estate tax at his death or reducing his tax benefits at
his death to insure inheritance by the children. The
committee believes that the tax laws should be neutral
and that tax consequences should not control an
individual’s disposition of property. Accordingly, the
committee believes that a deduction should be permitted
for certain terminable interests.
H. Rept. 97-201, supra at 159-160, 1981-2 C.B. at 377-378; see
H. Conf. Rept. 97-215, at 247 (1981), 1981-2 C.B. 481, 507
(conference agreement follows the House bill and Senate
amendment).
Thus, Congress enacted section 2056(b)(7) in order to allow
a decedent to enjoy the benefits of the marital deduction while,
at the same time, exercising the type of control over the
disposition of the property upon the termination of the surviving
spouse’s interest that would, under prior law, have violated the
terminable interest rule. Clearly, by providing for an election,
Congress’ purpose also was to allow some post mortem tax
planning. I cannot distill from the committee reports, however,
any clear indication that Congress’ purpose was anymore than to
allow the decedent’s personal representative to determine the tax
consequence of a disposition that had been predetermined by the
decedent. If Congress’ purpose were any more than that, it seems
to me that relevant committees would have stated that purpose.
For me, the committee reports are silent on the issue before us.
Page: Previous 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011