- 17 -
to petitioner, is an interest in the stock that qualifies for the
marital deduction.
Petitioner also argues that Patricia Low paid no attention
to the agency's corporate tax returns and her individual tax
returns and that she did not notice that the returns treated her
as the sole shareholder of the agency. Petitioner further argues
that nothing Patricia Low did after her mother's death could
possibly have a bearing on decedent's intentions when drafting
her will and codicil.
In the alterative, petitioner argues that the will merely
gave Patricia Low an option to buy the stock. Patricia Low
testified that her mother told her she would have an opportunity
to purchase the agency stock upon her mother's death, and
petitioner argues that decedent's attorney, Jan Seigel, supported
this interpretation. Respondent counters by pointing out that
the testimony is self-serving, uncorroborated, and incredible
since the stock purchase agreement already gave Patricia Low an
option to purchase the agency stock upon her mother's death, and
her actions after her mother's death call her veracity into
question.
Petitioner argues that the New Jersey doctrine of probable
intent controls the interpretation of decedent's will, not
general rules of will construction. According to petitioner,
decedent would not have wanted her daughter to inherit any stock
if she did not fully and completely comply with her wishes, as
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