- 16 -
administered. There, we held that the lawsuit primarily7
involved claims related to the trust's administration, rather
than title, and thus a deduction under section 212 was allowed.
See Moore Trust v. Commissioner, supra.
In the Estate of Barnhart case, the underlying lawsuit
involved nine specific claims which can be grouped into two
general sets of claims. Under the first set of claims, the
plaintiffs charged the taxpayer with waste and mismanagement of
the trust, seeking to have her removed as trustee and have the
wasted assets restored. The second set of claims alleged that
the taxpayer lacked the power to appoint beneficiaries of the
trust by will, and that the plaintiffs, as heirs at law, were
entitled to the corpus upon the death of the taxpayer. The
validity of the trust and the taxpayer's right to receive all the
income therefrom were unchallenged. As the taxpayer was elderly
and without descendants, we concluded that her principal purpose
in challenging the plaintiffs’ assertion of remainder rights was
to preclude their challenge to her continued administration of
the trust.8 Therefore, we held that, because the suit was
principally related to the trust's management and not its title
7Although we no longer use the primary-purpose test,
application of the origin-of-the-claim test in that case would
not have materially changed our decision. See Moore Trust v.
Commissioner, 49 T.C. 430, 443-446 (1968) (Tannenwald, J.,
concurring).
8See supra note 7.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011