- 34 -
estate tax laws." According to petitioner, the statements
made by the decedent to those individuals "are simply not
reconcilable with the Will as drafted" and "Under
California law the Will is therefore ambiguous".
Even assuming that we accept petitioner's
characterization of the testimony of its seven witnesses,
we do not agree that any of the testimony proves either
that the decedent intended the corpus of the testamentary
trust to qualify for the marital deduction, or that any of
the language used in the decedent's 1986 will is ambiguous.
The testimony of petitioner's witnesses consists of general
statements made by the decedent to his family, friends, and
business associates about estate planning and death taxes.
None of petitioner's witnesses, other than Mrs. Rapp, ever
saw the decedent's 1986 will, and in no case did the
decedent discuss specific provisions of his will with any
of them. None of the decedent's statements specifically
refers to his 1986 will, let alone uncovers an ambiguity in
the language used in the will.
The picture that emerges from the testimony of
petitioner's witnesses is that the decedent was a
successful businessman who was knowledgeable about the
Federal income tax consequences of his leasing business,
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011