- 22 -
both the form and the effect are consistent with the statute. We
further observe that respondent’s attempts to equate the estate’s
rights here with other contingent, post-death interests are
premised on the bifurcation of the estate’s interest from that of
petitioner. Yet, given the historical unity between an
individual and his or her estate, we believe such separation is
unwarranted where the trust is drafted in the form of a specified
interest retained by the grantor, with the estate designated only
as the alternate payee of that precise interest. This is the
result that would obtain if the governing instrument were simply
silent as to the disposition of the annuity in the event of the
grantor’s death during the trust term. Additionally, any other
construction would effectively eliminate the qualified term-of-
years annuity, a result not contemplated by Congress.
Moreover, we note in this connection that the Commissioner
has defined noncontingent for purposes of determining a qualified
remainder interest as follows: “an interest is non-contingent
only if it is payable to the beneficiary or the beneficiary’s
estate in all events.” Sec. 25.2702-3(f)(1)(iii), Gift Tax Regs.
We are satisfied that this principle is equally applicable in the
circumstances at bar. For similar reasons, we decline
respondent’s invitation to treat term annuities payable to a
grantor or the grantor’s estate as having two separate “holders”
for purposes of the regulatory requirement of section 25.2702-
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