- 36 -
extrinsic evidence that uncovers an ambiguity, in the sense
of a double meaning, in the language used in the decedent's
1986 will from which we could infer that the decedent
intended the trust to be eligible for the marital
deduction. We simply have no basis to conclude from the
record of this case that the decedent intended Mrs. Rapp to
be "entitled to all the income from the property, payable
annually or at more frequent intervals" as required by
section 2056(b)(7)(B) (ii)(I). See Estate of Heim v.
Commissioner, 914 F.2d at 1330.
QTIP Rules Must Be Applied as of the Date of the Election
Petitioner's second argument is that the date for
determining whether property or an interest in property
passing to the surviving spouse qualifies as QTIP is the
date of the QTIP election and not the date of the
decedent's death. According to petitioner, the trust
property in this case qualifies as QTIP because on the date
the QTIP election was made, Mrs. Rapp was entitled to all
of the income from the trust. In support of that argument,
petitioner cites recent opinions issued by the U.S. Courts
of Appeals for the Sixth, Eighth, and Fifth Circuits in
Estate of Spencer v. Commissioner, 43 F.3d 226 (6th Cir.
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011