- 26 -
Moreover, we do not think that the interest expense was
incurred for the benefit of decedent's heirs. See sec. 20.2053-
3(a), Estate Tax Regs. Although Dorough testified that the value
of the stocks retained by the estate had indeed increased after
the Note was executed, to the benefit of decedent's heirs, such
an increase could not have been forecast at the time of the
borrowing. As Dorough explained, predictions as to the direction
of the market were "very uncertain".
In any event, retaining the marketable securities for
potential appreciation does not strike us as the sole or even
principal factor for retaining the stocks given the estate's
liquidity problem. Although not identical, we think that Marcus
v. DeWitt, 704 F.2d 1227, 1232 (11th Cir. 1983), involving the
deductibility of expenses incurred in the sale of a decedent's
residence, is analogous to the instant case. In Marcus, the
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, to which an appeal of
this case would ordinarily lie, stated that "If the sale was made
for the benefit of the estate it is not significant that the
beneficiaries also benefitted. The law is well established that
such dual benefit does not affect deductibility." Accord Estate
of Papson v. Commissioner, supra at 295; compare Estate of Posen
v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 355, 365 (1980) (disallowing deduction
for expenses related to the sale of an apartment upon a finding
that the sale was "made solely for the benefit of * * *
[decedent's daughter] as heir.") (Emphasis added.)).
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011