- 7 -
estate during the period of administration"). But the fact that
the disposition of the income follows the disposition of the
residue does not mean that the income is merged into and becomes
part of the residue. See Alston v. United States, 349 F.2d 87,
88-89 (5th Cir. 1965); Ballantine v. Tomlinson, 293 F.2d 311, 313
(5th Cir. 1961); see also Estate of Hubert v. Commissioner, 101
T.C. 314, 330 (1993), affd. 63 F.3d 1083 (11th Cir. 1995)
(adopting the opinion of this Court as its own), cert. granted
517 U.S. , 116 S. Ct. 1564 (1996); Empire Trust Co. v. United
States, 226 F. Supp. 623 (S.D.N.Y. 1963). In this connection, we
note that sec. 857.03, Wis. Stat. Ann. (West 1991), provides that
the personal representative shall "collect * * * all the
decedent's estate" and "collect all income * * * from decedent's
estate", as well as pay expenses of administration "out of the
estate". This provision supports the view that the income is
separate and apart from the estate, i.e., principal, particularly
with reference to the payment of administration expenses.
In view of the foregoing, we reject petitioner's position
that the income during the period of administration should be
treated as principal in order to permit that income to be
considered a proper source for the payment of the personal
representative's fee. As a result, the personal representative's
fee is chargeable to principal both under the statute and the
will. This conclusion finds support in Matter of Estate of
Pirsch, 435 N.W.2d 317, 319 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988), holding that,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011