- 25 -
will. The nature of Mrs. Rapp's interest in the trust is a
matter of California State law. See, e.g., Estate of Heim
v. Commissioner, 914 F.2d 1322, 1327 (9th Cir. 1990), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1988-433.
Petitioner argues that the order of the probate court
reforming the decedent's will should be respected for
Federal estate tax purposes. However, the law is clear,
and both parties to this case agree, that we are not bound
by the action of a State trial court, such as the order of
the probate court, that has not been affirmed by the
State's highest court. Commissioner v. Estate of Bosch,
387 U.S. 456 (1967); Ahmanson Found. v. United States, 674
F.2d 761, 773-775 (9th Cir. 1981); see Estate of Nicholson
v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 666, 673-674, 680 (1990). If the
action of the probate court is to be respected for Federal
estate tax purposes, it must be in conformity with
California law, and in the absence of a determination by
the California Supreme Court, we are charged with the
responsibility of making that determination. Commissioner
v. Estate of Bosch, supra at 465. Thus, we must decide
whether Mrs. Rapp had an enforceable right under California
law to obtain annual distributions of all of the income
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