- 2 - pursuant to Rule 161.1 We incorporate herein by this reference the facts found in our prior opinion, Marten v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-340 (Marten I), and we reiterate the pertinent facts and find additional facts as necessary. In 1953, David E. Lane (Mr. Lane) and Ms. Marten married. During their marriage, they had four children. Their youngest child, Niklas, nearly drowned in an accident and became a quadriplegic at age 4. On or about January 16, 1979, Mr. Lane and Ms. Marten legally separated. On September 1, 1982, Mr. Lane purchased a $750,000 life insurance policy on his own life (the policy). The policy was a whole life policy that began accumulating a cash surrender value in the 16th year. Ms. Marten was the owner and irrevocable beneficiary of the policy, and it was immediately assignable by her. On March 20, 1984, the Sacramento County Superior Court (the superior court) dissolved the marriage of Mr. Lane and Ms. Marten. In an order issued by the superior court (the support decree), among other things, Mr. Lane was ordered to continue paying the premiums on the policy. On January 27, 1987, the 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011