- 20 -
The lesson of Commissioner v. Estate of Bosch, 387 U.S. 456
(1967), is that, respondent, having been absent from the State
court proceeding that established rights to the decedent’s
property, is entitled to her day in Federal court, unless she
could not there prevail. The California court did not explain
the basis of its determinations5; we do not know whether the
California court was determining a question of California law as
to community property or was relying on the unopposed averments
made by petitioner that the Bard property was community property.
Therefore, we cannot rule out that respondent, had she been
present in the California court, would have prevailed in opposing
petitioner’s claim that the Bard property was community property.
The situation here is not unlike the situation we faced in Estate
of Rowan v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 633, 638 (1970) (Bosch applied;
State court decision concerning ownership of property of decedent
(including community property) not determinative: “On the record
before us, there is no explanation of how and why the State court
reached its decision.”). We conclude that we are not bound by
the determinations of the California court, and we will not
follow those determinations.
C. Decedent’s Acquisition of an Interest in
the New Mexico Ranch
Decedent acquired an interest in the New Mexico ranch when
that property was bought and paid for by decedent’s father. The
5 See supra note 1.
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