- 21 -
indicates that it was for the reimbursement of lost furnishings
(personal property).8
The estate argues that inclusion of $88,506 in the gross
estate would, in effect, result in double counting. That is so
because decedent was paid the policy limits prior to her death,
which included $142,915 for household contents. At the time of
death, decedent had received reimbursement from the insurance
company in an amount that exceeded the insurance company’s
maximum liability to pay for the loss of “contents”. To the
extent that predeath reimbursement was used to pay for
restoration, it would have been reflected in the value of the
partially completed residence. To the extent that predeath
reimbursement was used to pay for furnishings, they would have
been scheduled as assets on the estate tax return. To the extent
that any reimbursement or payment received in connection with the
insurance policy had not been used, it would be reflected as part
of decedent’s liquid assets (cash) that was included in the gross
estate.
Respondent’s approach of anticipating the possible existence
of household furnishings based on events occurring subsequent to
decedent’s death and that were not known at the time of
8 Based on the record and in the context of this case, there
is no way to know with certainty the meaning of the term
“contents” or whether decedent was owed $88,506 at the time of
her death for the loss of personal property.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011