- 25 -
necessity of sacrificing the assets of the estate by immediate or
forced sale of the same, or any part thereof, and the
expenditures properly incident thereto were clearly made for the
purposes of preserving and preventing waste of the estate". Id.
at 726. Additionally, the estate faced valuation disputes with
the Commissioner. These claims and disputes showed that the
estate could not have been closed and the loans were warranted.
We held that the discount and redemption premiums that were
authorized by a California court constituted proper
administration expenses of the estate.
Respondent distinguishes Estate of Huntington, on the ground
that the loans in that case were authorized by a local probate
court. However, section 20.2053-1(b)(2), Estate Tax Regs.
provides that "a deduction * * * of a reasonable expense of
administration, will not be denied because no court decree has
been entered if the amount would be allowable under local law."
In this regard, we note that the executor in Cleveland Bank and
Trust Co v. Olsen, 682 S.W.2d 200 (Tenn. 1984), did not seek
prior court approval for the loans it obtained. Nonetheless, the
Tennessee Supreme Court held that the interest charged was a
proper administration expense where the testator had incorporated
the provision of Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 35-50-110 in his will.
Respondent attempts to bring this case within the scope of
Hibernia Bank v. United States, 581 F.2d 741 (9th Cir. 1978). In
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011