- 12 - Harper deals with an entirely different situation than that present here. Our decision in Harper is consistent with Ahmanson Foundation, supra, which states: We must distinguish, however, the effect of "predistribution" transformations and changes in value brought about by the testator's death, from changes in value resulting from the fact that under the decedent's estate plan the assets in the gross estate ultimately come to rest in the hands of different beneficiaries. [Ahmanson Foundation v. United States, 674 F.2d at 768.] The estate tax is a tax on the privilege of passing on property, not a tax on the privilege of receiving property. "The tax is on the act of the testator not on the receipt of the property by the legatees." Ithaca Trust Co. v. United States, 279 U.S. 151, 155 (1929). Unlike Harper, petitioner's case does not involve a change in value resulting from the distribution of decedent's estate. In Goodman v. Granger, 243 F.2d 264 (3d Cir. 1957), the court evaluated three employment contracts carrying "contingent benefits" of $2,000 annually for 15 years after the employee ceased to be employed by the employer by reason of death or otherwise. The post-employment contingent payments were to be made only if the employee did not engage in any competing business for a certain period of time and if his post-employment earnings from other work did not exceed a certain amount. The court held that since the possibility of forfeiture was extinguished by the decedent's death the contract rights shouldPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011