- 21 -
decedent’s attorney who assisted him in estate planning and
drafted the will. He testified that decedent did not mention the
Agreement to him, and he found the Agreement in decedent’s safe
deposit box after his death, among many old wills and other
papers. Bell received more under the will than she would have
under the 1981 will. Petitioners have failed to convince us that
decedent did not provide for Bell in his last will independent of
any obligation that he might have had under the Agreement. In
short, petitioners have failed to prove that the Agreement
motivated decedent to provide for Bell in the will. We do not
attempt to read decedent’s mind. Cf. Mahoney v. United States,
831 F.2d 641. 647 (6th Cir. 1987) (counseling against such
practices in applying the estate tax). Given decedent’s
demonstrated affection for Bell, we hold only that petitioners
have failed to provide a compensatory motive.
Furthermore, petitioners have failed to prove that any
obligation imposed on decedent by the Agreement was for an
adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth, which
is required to support a deduction under section 2053(a)(3) and
(c)(1)(A). The recited consideration includes past services,
without any indication that decedent owed Bell anything with
respect to those services. The future services called for from
Bell are her care of decedent and decedent’s daughter and
decedent’s home “as long as she is physically able to do so.”
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011