- 14 - Giving retroactive effect to a statute has been held appropriate where “the statute does not have the effect of impairing the obligation of a contract and is not destructive of vested rights.” Estate of Ridenour v. Commissioner, 36 F.3d 332, 335 (4th Cir. 1994), affg. T.C. Memo. 1993-41. In Estate of Ridenour, a Virginia statute permitting a gifting power to be exercised under power of attorney was held to have retroactive effect for Federal gift tax purposes. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Virginia statute merely clarified that a court may infer a gift power in appropriate circumstances even though no such power is set forth explicitly in the text of the power of attorney. The Court of Appeals concluded, as did the Tax Court, that the statute neither impaired contractual obligations nor destroyed vested rights which existed prior to the enactment of the statute. See id. at 335. However, where a nunc pro tunc modification of a State court decree provided for retroactive increases in alimony, it was generally deemed ineffective for Federal income tax purposes. See Torkoglu v. Commissioner, 36 T.C. 552, 555 (1961); Segal v. Commissioner, 36 T.C. 148 (1961); Van Vlaanderen v. Commissioner, 10 T.C. 706 (1948), affd. 175 F.2d 389 (3d Cir. 1949); Daine v. Commissioner, 9 T.C. 47 (1947), affd. 168 F.2d 449, 451-452 (2d Cir. 1948); Blanchard v. Commissioner, 424 F. Supp. 916 (D. Md. 1976).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011