- 9 - In sum, since the personal representative's fee is to be paid from the residue, which is principal of the estate, such payment reduces the marital deduction under section 2056. See Estate of Fine v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 1068 (1988), affd. without published opinion 885 F.2d 879 (11th Cir. 1989) (marital deduction is reduced where administration expenses are paid from the residuary estate under the terms of the will); Estate of Dawson v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 315 (1974) (marital deduction is reduced where administration expenses are paid from the residue on the basis of state law); Estate of Roney v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 801 (1960), affd. per curiam 294 F.2d 774 (5th Cir. 1961) (same); Empire Trust Co. v. United States, supra. Petitioner's reliance on Estate of Hubert v. Commissioner, supra, and Estate of Allen v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 351 (1993), is misplaced. Both those cases involved will and statutory provisions pursuant to which administration expenses were to be paid out of income. By way of contrast, the foundation of our conclusion herein is that the will and statutory provisions mandated that such expenses be paid out of principal. Thus, Estate of Hubert and Estate of Allen are clearly distinguishable. Estate of Street v. Commissioner, 974 F.2d 723 (6th Cir. 1992), affg. in part, revg. in part, and remanding T.C. Memo. 1988-553,Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011