- 10 -
than fair market value. Petitioner's claims were aimed at
enlarging the amount of money to be ultimately distributed by the
estate. These claims are analogous to those in Grabien v.
Commissioner, 48 T.C. 750 (1967). In that case a taxpayer, who
was a residuary legatee of 50 percent of his brother's estate,
sued the executrix, alleging excessive fee payments and asking
for an accounting. We denied a deduction for the attorney's fees
paid for those actions because:
Petitioner's interest in the estate was essentially a
money claim dependent in amount on the amount of cash
in the estate after the conversion to cash of the
estate's assets and after allowance of all expenses of
administration. A mere money claim of this sort is not
property held for the production of income and
petitioner never held the property for the production
of income or otherwise until after the determination of
the Probate Court with respect to the disputed
extraordinary fees and distribution of the estate
assets. The expense here in issue is analogous to an
expense of perfecting or protecting title to property
and not deductible as an expense of managing,
maintaining, or conserving property. [Id. at 753;
citations omitted.]
Accordingly, we find the claims pursued by petitioner in the
State court to be in essence either capital or personal in
nature.
We note that one of the allegations by petitioner in each of
her two legal actions concerns the failure of the executors, for
a period of time, to collect rent on the Chicago property and
their concession of back rent upon the sale of the property,
apparently to the lessee. Petitioners urge the Court to find
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011