- 6 - We determine property rights of the parties under State law (in this case, California, see supra p. 3) in order to provide the foundation for deciding the Federal tax consequences thereof. Helvering v. Stuart, 317 U.S. 154, 162 (1942); Estate of Heim v. Commissioner, 914 F.2d 1322, 1327 (9th Cir. 1990), affg. T.C. Memo. 1988-433; see also United States v. Irvine, 511 U.S. , 114 S. Ct. 1473, 1481 (1994). We apply California law as announced by the Supreme Court of California, or, if there is no decision by that highest court, we apply what we conclude that court would decide, giving proper regard to the decisions of other courts of the State. Commissioner v. Estate of Bosch, 387 U.S. 456, 465 (1967).3 Petitioners argue that the trust document did not validly create the trust because of the absence of Schedule A and that therefore the trust fails for lack of trust property. Proceeding from this conclusion, petitioners argue that, by virtue of the purchase agreement, McCormick and Furman acquired the property as individuals and then, by virtue of their signatures on the trust document and their designation as trustees in the purchase agreement, constituted themselves trustees for the Meek beneficiaries and consequently they, and not Meek, were the settlors. 3 See also Estate of McKay v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-362.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011