- 14 -
On the basis of the above statute, the estate maintains that the
power of appointment decedent signed on February 5, 1998, never
became effective because the disclaimer subsequently executed by
Ms. Mattson related back to Mr. Engelman’s death on December 30,
1997, and therefore must be treated as predating the exercise.
At the outset, we note that the State law doctrine of
relation back can have no potential applicability to this case
unless the purported disclaimer was effective for State law
purposes. Additionally, this Court has held as a general rule
that a disclaimer will not be treated as qualified under section
2518 unless it is effective under applicable local law, since
State law determines whether a property interest has passed.
Estate of Bennett v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 42, 67 (1993); Estate
of Chamberlain v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-181, affd. 9 Fed.
Appx. 713 (9th Cir. 2001). Hence, as a threshold matter, we
consider the requirements for a valid disclaimer under California
law. As pertinent here, Cal. Prob. Code section 285 (West 2002)
contains restrictions on the ability of a donee to make a
disclaimer:
(a) A disclaimer may not be made after the
beneficiary has accepted the interest sought to be
disclaimed.
(b) For the purpose of this section, a beneficiary
has accepted an interest if any of the following occurs
before a disclaimer is filed with respect to that
interest:
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011