- 73 -
As noted above, in this case: (1) The children and their
spouses expressly assumed most of decedent's share of the Land
Bank loan; (2) decedent had rights of contribution (or
subrogation) against her co-obligors on the Land Bank loan, but
we are unable to determine the value of those rights; (3)
petitioner admits that most of the proceeds of the Land Bank loan
did not benefit decedent, and there is little evidence that more
than a de minimis portion of the proceeds benefited decedent; (4)
payments have continued to be made on the Land Bank loan since
decedent's death; (5) neither Garry's estate nor decedent
deducted the interest on the Land Bank loan; (6) no claims were
filed against decedent's estate with respect to the Land Bank
loan; and (7) only a small portion of the security for the Land
Bank loan was included in decedent's estate.
On the basis of all these facts and circumstances, we hold
that petitioner is not entitled to any deduction for the Land
Bank loan under section 2053(a)(4), even though a small portion
of the security for the loan was included in decedent's estate.
See Estate of Theis v. Commissioner, supra; Estate of Courtney v.
Commissioner, supra; cf. Estate of Fawcett v. Commissioner, 64
T.C. 889 (1975) (Commissioner's determination that one-half of
joint and several debt was deductible as an unpaid mortgage was
not disturbed); Estate of Scofield v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1980-470 (estate's unpaid mortgage deduction, reduced by value of
Page: Previous 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011