Estate of Lewis S. Thompson, III, Deceased, Synovus Trust Company, Successor Executor To Security Bank and Trust Company - Page 23

                                       - 23 -                                         
               We take the underscored language above to mean that an                 
          executor need not petition the probate court judge for permission           
          to borrow funds if a decedent's will otherwise invests the                  
          executor with such authority.  In this case, Item Ten of                    
          decedent's will unequivocally states that the executor may borrow           
          money without a court order "for any purpose that the fiduciary             
          may deem proper."  We therefore conclude that the interest                  
          incurred on the borrowed funds is an allowable administration               
          expense under Georgia law.  See Estate of Todd v. Commissioner,             
          supra at 295 n.4.                                                           
               We must now consider whether interest on the Note was                  
          "necessarily incurred in the administration of the decedent's               
          estate."  Sec. 20.2053-3(a), Estate Tax Regs.; see Estate of Todd           
          v. Commissioner, supra; McKee v. Commissioner, supra.                       
               Petitioner argues that, without the borrowed funds, the                
          estate would have been required to exhaust all of its liquidity             
          to pay its estate taxes and, even then, a shortfall would have              
          remained.  Moreover, no funds would have been left to provide for           
          the ongoing costs of maintenance and preservation of Cane Mill              
          until such time as that asset could be distributed to decedent's            
          heirs.  Thus, petitioner asserts, the interest expense was                  
          necessary and appropriate in the fiduciary's administration of              
          the estate.                                                                 
               Respondent, on the other hand, argues that the estate held             
          sufficient liquid assets from which its Federal and State estate            




Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011