- 64 -
Respondent argues that petitioner and the Administration
Trust don't satisfy the identity-of-interest requirement because:
(1) The Administration Trust, far from being the only beneficiary
of decedent’s estate, is not even a beneficiary; (2) petitioner’s
recoupment claim will inure to the benefit of all beneficiaries
of the Administration Trust, and petitioner hasn't met the burden
of showing an identity of interest between the Administration
Trust and the estate; (3) the Administration Trust has been and
will be reimbursed for part of its payment of decedent’s estate
taxes by the other parties in interest to whom some portion of
the Federal estate tax liability will be apportioned; (4) some of
the Administration Trust’s beneficiaries aren't beneficiaries of
the estate; and (5) the case law supports denying rather than
affirming that the requirement is satisfied.
These arguments don't seem to me to have force. Although
the Michigan Uniform Estate Tax Apportionment Act provides that,
unless the will otherwise provides, death taxes shall be
apportioned in proportion to the value of the interest that each
person has in the estate, Mich. Comp. Laws sec. 720.12 (1979), it
also contains several provisions for equitable apportionment,
Mich. Comp. Laws secs. 720.13(b), 720.15(d), 720.16 (1979). The
aim of this statute is to ensure an equitable allocation of the
burden of the tax among those actually affected by that burden.
In re Estate of Roe, 426 N.W.2d 797, 799-800 (Mich. Ct. App.
1988).
Page: Previous 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011