- 32 -
right "to all the income from the property, payable
annually or at more frequent intervals", as required by
the definition of qualifying income interest for life, set
forth in section 2056(b)(7)(B)(ii)(I). Further, there is
no mention of the marital deduction in the decedent's will
nor any evidence from the language of the will that the
decedent intended the trust property to qualify for the
marital deduction.
Notwithstanding the seemingly unambiguous language
used in the decedent's will, the Court allowed petitioner
to introduce extrinsic evidence of the facts and
circumstances surrounding the execution of the decedent's
1986 will, over respondent's objection. As discussed
above, the introduction of such evidence is permissible
under California law. E.g., Hembree v. Quinn, supra at
361-362; Hoover v. Hartman, supra at 673.
Petitioner introduced the testimony of seven witnesses
into evidence and, based thereon, claims to have presented
substantial direct and indirect evidence "that the Decedent
intended that the residue of his estate qualify for the
marital deduction." As direct evidence of such intent,
petitioner cites the testimony of three witnesses and
argues in its post-trial brief that the decedent told his
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011