- 20 -
residue as a whole,4 the estate has failed to prove the amount of
the allowable deduction. See Rule 122(b). The estate at no time
offered evidence to establish the value of the foreign residuary
assets. The sole allegation regarding a specific dollar figure
for the foreign residue appears to be a statement in the
uncontested distribution agreement filed by decedent’s
beneficiaries in connection with the California spousal property
petition, wherein it is recited that “The residue consists of
certain property located in Hong Kong having an estimated value
of U.S. $600,000.” Such statement is by its very terms an
estimate or approximation and falls short of constituting
reliable proof. In addition, although both parties seem to have
accepted $729,339 as the value of the foreign gross estate, they
have not identified the portion of that amount which was
administered under the residuary clause of decedent’s will. A
similar shortcoming adheres with respect to the assets lists
accompanying the Hong Kong CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM ESTATE
DUTY, which, while included as part of the record, have been
offered without further explanation of the relationship, if any,
of the enumerated items to the provisions of decedent’s will.
4 It is by no means certain that this argument would
prevail. See discussions by the following well-known
commentators: 4 Casner, Estate Planning, sec. 13.5.2, at 87 (5th
ed. 1988); Manning et al., Manning on Estate Planning, sec. 2.7,
at 2-31 (5th ed. 2001); Covey, The Marital Deduction and the Use
of Formula Provisions, 95 (2d ed. 1978).
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011