- 39 -
“contracted bona fide and for an adequate and full consideration in
money or money’s worth”. As noted heretofore, “adequate and full
consideration” for purposes of section 2053(c)(1)(A) is a higher
standard of consideration than that required to establish the
validity of a contract under State law. Estate of Carli v.
Commissioner, supra. The record is devoid of any evidence that the
Glovers’ claim for 60 percent of the settlement proceeds was
contracted for an adequate and full consideration in money or
money’s worth. Indeed, aside from dubious RICO claims and claims
for punitive damages, the damages related to the Glovers’ claims
against Eckell, Sparks (attorney’s fees of $340,270, together with
interest and costs) are substantially less than the damages related
to decedent’s claims and those of the estate (e.g., over $1 million
related to the claim of malpractice in preparing the will). To be
deductible as an administration expense, the regulations require
that the payment to the Glovers must have been “essential to the
proper settlement of the estate”. Sec. 20.2053-3(c)(3), (a),
Estate Tax Regs. We do not find that the payment to the Glovers
was essential to the proper settlement of the estate. In
considering this matter, we are mindful that it is the duty of an
administrator to collect and protect assets of the estate.
There is no indication that the specific bequests in
decedent’s will to beneficiaries other than the Glovers could not
be satisfied with the assets in decedent’s estate if the claims
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011