Estate of Ethel M. Cumber Wilson, Deceased, Ethel C. Kelly and Dennis I. Belcher, Co-Executors - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         

          of the decedent or of the estate, as compared to bequests and               
          legacies.  First Natl. Bank of Amarillo v. United States, 422               
          F.2d 1385, 1386 (10th Cir. 1970).  To be deductible, the claim              
          must represent a personal obligation of the decedent at the time            
          of death.  Section 2053(c)(1)(A) places a limitation on the type            
          of claims at issue in this case by providing:                               

                    (A)  Consideration for claims.--The deduction                     
               allowed by this section in the case of claims against                  
               the estate, * * * shall, when founded on a promise or                  
               agreement, be limited to the extent that they were                     
               contracted bona fide and for an adequate and full                      
               consideration in money or money's worth; * * *                         

          Section 2053(c)(1)(A) is mirrored by the provisions of section              
          20.2053-4, Estate Tax Regs.                                                 
               The purpose of the "adequate and full consideration"                   
          requirement is to prevent the depletion of the estate by the use            
          of agreements which would ultimately serve to avoid the estate              
          tax.  Bank of New York v. United States, 526 F.2d 1012, 1016 (3d            
          Cir. 1975); see Estate of Hartshorne v. Commissioner, 402 F.2d              
          592, 594 n.2 (2d Cir. 1968); Latty v. Commissioner, 62 F.2d 952,            
          953-954 (6th Cir. 1933).  Thus, claims based upon promises or               
          agreements must be "contracted for a consideration which at the             
          time either augmented the estate of the decedent, granted to him            
          some right or privilege he did not possess before, or operated to           
          discharge a then existing claim".  Latty v. Commissioner, supra             
          at 954. Furthermore, under the statute, some consideration is not           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011