- 11 -
Id. at 1074. We concluded that apportionment language in the
will required "that estate and inheritance taxes be paid out of
the entire residuary estate." Id. at 1075. We held that the
"without apportionment" language meant (1) that the maximized
marital deduction safeguarded by the Virginia statute did not
apply and (2) that specific bequests under the will did not bear
any of the taxes due. Id. at 1076. The pertinent provisions of
decedent's will in this case are indistinguishable and do not
lead to a different result.
Petitioner argues that decedent could not have knowingly
opted out of the statute because the statute was not enacted
until 1987, 3 years after decedent executed her will. We reject
petitioner's position. Although it is true that Texas did not
have an apportionment statute in effect when decedent executed
her will, the highly specific directive in the will that estate
taxes be paid out of the residue "without apportionment"
manifests an unequivocal intent that there be no apportionment.
Thus, the language of the will compels the result. Further, no
other portion of her will indicates a contrary intent.
Petitioner contends that, by providing that the estate tax
be paid out of the residuary "without apportionment", decedent
rejected equal apportionment between Mr. Miller and the trust and
intended that the entire estate tax be paid by the trust. This
argument is contrary to the recognized meaning of that phrase, as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011