- 28 -
petitioner apparently believes that its amended petition leaves
it room to argue that the surviving spouse inherited either the
stock or an interest in the stock. We believe that respondent's
interpretation is correct; petitioner has conceded arguing that
the stream of payments, however categorized, qualifies for the
marital deduction.7 Therefore, accepting petitioner's
concession, we hold that decedent's husband did not inherit an
interest in the agency stock that qualifies for the marital
deduction.
C. Cancellation of Debt Issue
Respondent first raised the cancellation of debt issue in an
amended answer. Consequently, she bears the burden of proof on
this issue. Rule 142(a). The facts surrounding the cancellation
of Patricia Low's obligation to pay her mother under the
agreement are not in dispute. While on her deathbed, decedent
canceled her daughter's obligation to make the payments called
for in the agreement; no reason was given by decedent.
Petitioner argues that decedent was not making a gift to her
daughter but was reducing the purchase price of the stock.
Petitioner further argues that decedent had no donative intent,
so there could be no gift. No evidence was offered by petitioner
7 We note that the daughter, who neither made the payments
to her father called for in her mother's will, nor, as executrix,
ever caused the Agency stock to be transferred to her father,
argues that the estate is nevertheless entitled to a marital
deduction. We find this argument to be disingenuous.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011