- 27 -
1991), revg. T.C. Memo. 1989-511. Petitioner contends that the
facts in Estate of Ridenour are analogous to the instant case and
that Estate of Casey is factually distinguishable. Respondent,
on the other hand, asserts that the Supreme Court of Oregon would
rely heavily on the holding and rationale of Estate of Casey and
that the holding in Estate of Ridenour has no application to the
present case. Although each of these cases involves an issue
identical to the one presented here and may be helpful to our
analysis, the cases applied Virginia State law and are not
controlling.
When the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided
Estate of Casey, Virginia’s highest court had not decided whether
the power to make gifts must be stated expressly in a power of
attorney in order to validate gifts made pursuant to the power of
attorney. See Estate of Casey v. Commissioner, supra at 898. In
the absence of guidance from Virginia’s highest court, the Court
of Appeals concluded that the power of attorney must be construed
strictly. The Court of Appeals examined the record for the
decedent’s intent and concluded that the decedent did not intend
to confer upon the attorney-in-fact the power to make gifts. See
id. The power to make gifts was not listed expressly in the
power of attorney, and the provisions of the power, read in
context, “suggest most strongly that the only asset transfer
powers intended to be conferred by the enumeration of the
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011