Estate of Carolyn W. Holland, Deceased, Jack K. Holland, Lewis G. Holland, Sr., and Betty H. Kann, Executors - Page 10

                                        -10-                                          
          the children "in some later year."  Petitioner asserts in its               
          petition that decedent transferred one-ninth of her interest in             
          the Weinstock Residence to each of the transferees in 1984, 1985,           
          and 1986, and that in 1987 they conveyed by quitclaim deed their            
          interests to the Carolyn Trust.6                                            
               The question before us is to what extent, if any, decedent             
          made gifts of her interest in the Weinstock Residence in 1984,              
          1985, and 1986.  We must look to the law of Georgia, where the              
          real property is located, for the answer to the problem thus                
          posed.  Our determination in this regard should, according to the           
          mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States in Commissioner           
          v. Estate of Bosch, 387 U.S. 456 (1967), be predicated on State             
          law, and the State's highest court is the best authority on its             
          own law.  If there be no decision by that court then Federal                
          authorities must apply what they find to be the State law after             
          giving "proper regard" to relevant rulings of other courts of the           
          State.  Id. at 465.                                                         
               Under the law of Georgia, an executor of a will cannot                 
          convey a greater interest in property than what the terms of the            
          will provide.  Ham v. Watkins, 181 S.E.2d 490, 492 (Ga. 1971).              


               6    At trial, and in its reply brief, petitioner abandoned            
          the position taken in its petition and argued that decedent's               
          entire interest in the Weinstock Residence was transferred in               
          1984, and that the transfers by deed in 1985 and 1986 were                  
          "effectively meaningless."  In response to petitioner's argument,           
          respondent argued that the 1984 transfer was a nullity, and the             
          $90,000 transfer in 1987 was an unreported taxable gift.  Both              
          parties thus appear to have abandoned their original positions              
          and to have adopted instead continuously moving targets.                    


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011