- 21 -
that Mrs. DiSanto was entitled to receive from Mr. DiSanto’s
estate after she made the disclaimer was $13 per share when she
died. See paragraph B-3, above. Mr. DiSanto’s estate may claim
a marital deduction based on that per share stock value.
Petitioners contend that we should disregard Mrs. DiSanto’s
disclaimer in deciding the amount of the marital deduction for
Mr. DiSanto’s estate just as we disregard postdeath fluctuations
in the values of assets in estates in deciding marital deduction
amounts. We disagree. Petitioners cite Rev. Rul. 90-3, 1990-1
C.B. 174. In Rev. Rul. 90-3, 1990-1 C.B. 174, respondent ruled
that the value of a residuary bequest to a surviving spouse does
not change even if the value of estate assets fluctuates after
the decedent dies. Mrs. DiSanto’s disclaimer of $1,325,000 worth
of Mr. DiSanto’s MD&F stock is not a postdeath fluctuation in the
value of his stock. Thus, Rev. Rul. 90-3, 1990-1 C.B. 174, does
not apply here.
Petitioners contend that, if a surviving spouse executes a
disclaimer, the marital deduction is merely reduced by the
disclaimed amount, citing Estate of Nix v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1996-109. We disagree. In Estate of Nix, we held that the
disclaimer reduced the surviving spouse’s interest in the
decedent’s estate by the value of disclaimed property. Unlike
the facts in Estate of Nix, here the qualified disclaimer reduces
Mrs. DiSanto’s interest in Mr. DiSanto’s stock in MD&F from a
controlling interest to a minority interest.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011