- 30 -
affirming the Tax Court, held that the newly enacted statute had
retroactive effect and required a decision in favor of the
taxpayer.16 In this case, however, we are not guided by a
specific State statute clarifying when we may infer the power to
make gifts from a general power of attorney; therefore, the
approach taken in Estate of Ridenour differs from our analysis.
Without an explicit ruling by the Supreme Court of Oregon or
a statute enacted by its legislature, we cannot decide this case
based on a bright-line rule that an agent lacks authority to make
gifts of the principal’s property unless the agent is expressly
given that power in the power of attorney. We must rely instead
upon Oregon law which requires us to consider both “the strict
letter” and “the spirit of the power” conferred upon the agent.
Wade v. Northup, 140 P. 451, 458 (Or. 1914). We recognize the
16The court noted, however, that its decision in Estate of
Casey v. Commissioner, 948 F.2d 895 (4th Cir. 1991), revg. T.C.
Memo. 1989-511, and the statute “can be reconciled, with the
statute expanding and clarifying the holding of the case”.
Estate of Ridenour v. Commissioner, supra at 334. Commenting on
the analysis that it applied in Estate of Casey, the court
stated:
This court therefore found that the appropriate method
to resolve the question was to review the complete text
of the particular instrument and the circumstances of
its execution to determine whether we could infer in it
a power, though unexpressed, to make the gifts at
issue. * * * Casey thus stands for the proposition
that to infer an implied gift power, the court must
look to the intent of the person granting power of
attorney. [Estate of Ridenour v. Commissioner, supra at
334.]
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