- 33 -
noncompliance, then it is mandatory."); Vaughn v. John C. Winston
Co., 83 F.2d 370, 372 (10th Cir. 1936).
Congress enacted section 2518 in order to provide definitive
and uniform disclaimer rules for purposes of the Federal transfer
taxes. From the legislative history and text of section 2518, it
is clear that, above all else, a valid disclaimer requires an
irrevocable and unqualified refusal, expressed in writing, to
accept an interest in property. The policy underlying the
requirements of section 2518(b) is to ensure that only actual and
verifiable refusals of an interest in property, made without the
benefit of hindsight, are treated as disclaimers for purposes of
the Federal transfer taxes. See Estate of Lute v. United States,
19 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (D. Neb. 1998) (citing 5 Bittker & Lokken,
supra, par. 121.7.2 at 121-51). Essential to the furtherance of
this policy is the requirement that an irrevocable and
unqualified refusal be made timely in a written instrument.
Unless the intent to disclaim is expressed in writing, the
disclaimant retains a degree of control over the property after
the purported disclaimer because he can freely withdraw the
disclaimer after the fact. Because the disclaimant is able to
withdraw an equivocal disclaimer after the fact, when the
purported disclaimer is claimed to have occurred, it is
impossible to determine whether the property will ultimately vest
in the taxpayer or some other person. See Estate of Lute v.
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011