Estate of Lewis S. Thompson, III, Deceased, Synovus Trust Company, Successor Executor To Security Bank and Trust Company - Page 25

                                       - 25 -                                         
          that no claim "shall be made against any life insurance                     
          beneficiary for payment of any part of such [estate] taxes."  See           
          Estate of Papson v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 290, 297 n.7 (1979).              
          Even if the life insurance proceeds were available, a gap of                
          almost $200,000 remained between liquid assets and estate tax               
          liabilities.                                                                
               Although respondent has suggested that the executor could              
          have clearcut merchantable Cane Mill timber to make up the                  
          difference, Dorough testified that this fairly drastic measure              
          would not have supplied the estate with the necessary amount of             
          funds, and he did not consider this course of action advisable.             
               In addition to its estate tax liabilities, Dorough testified           
          that the estate had other obligations, including liability for              
          property taxes, the salaries of two regular employees, and the              
          wages of occasional laborers, all of which required the retention           
          of a certain amount of liquidity pending the resolution of the              
          instant dispute, inasmuch as the estate itself did not generate             
          sufficient income to maintain the Cane Mill operations.                     
               This Court stated in Estate of Sturgis v. Commissioner, T.C.           
          Memo. 1987-415 that "we are not prepared to second guess the                
          judgments of a fiduciary not shown to have acted other than in              
          the best interests of the estate."  The same sentiment holds sway           
          in the instant case; the regulations under section 2053 do not              
          require that an estate totally deplete its liquid assets before             
          an interest expense can be considered necessary.                            




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