Estate of Ethel M. Cumber Wilson, Deceased, Ethel C. Kelly and Dennis I. Belcher, Co-Executors - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         

          neither party could have known the ultimate results that their              
          respective promises would produce, since both promises depended             
          upon unknown future events and conditions.  The nature and the              
          duration of the services that David was obligated to perform were           
          dependent upon decedent's condition and longevity.  The value of            
          one-third of decedent's estate was dependent upon whatever                  
          expenditures were made to meet her needs and desires during her             
          life and fluctuations in the value of her assets.  See Estate of            
          Hartshorne v. Commissioner, supra at 596; Estate of Fenton v.               
          Commissioner, supra at 276-277.  Nevertheless, decedent and David           
          struck their bargain.  Based upon the facts presented, we find              
          that their mutual promises were based on adequate and full                  
          consideration in money's worth and not intended as a substitute             
          for a testamentary disposition.  Our conclusion is supported by             
          the results of the adversarial litigation between David and the             
          estate and their arm's-length structured settlement.  See First             
          Natl. Bank of Amarillo v. United States, 422 F.2d at 1388.3                 

               3In Estate of Boyce v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1972-204,              
          affd. in part, revd. in part and remanded sub nom. Wilder v.                
          Commissioner, 493 F.2d 608 (2d Cir. 1974), respondent disallowed            
          deductions for amounts paid to decedent's attorney for legal                
          services rendered during decedent's life.  Respondent conceded              
          that the deduction claimed by decedent's estate was allowable               
          pursuant to sec. 2053, in the event we decided in a companion               
          case that the decedent's attorney was required to include the               
          distribution from decedent's estate in gross income.  In the                
          companion case, we found such amounts to be includable in the               
          income of decedent's attorney and, therefore, held that                     
          decedent's estate was entitled to a deduction in the same amount.           
                                                             (continued...)           




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011