- 19 -
States v. Irvine, 511 U.S. 224, 239-240 (1994);
citations and fn. ref. omitted.]
The instant case fails to present any compelling
considerations of the nature seen in McDonald v. Commissioner,
supra. Nor would recognition of the relation-back concept serve
to advance the object of protecting the disclaimed assets from
the reach of decedent’s State-law creditors. Accordingly,
precedent does not justify use of the relation-back doctrine in
these circumstances to relieve decedent of the effects of having
exercised her power of appointment.
Having concluded that the legal fiction of relation back
should not be employed to prevent decedent’s power of appointment
from becoming effective at her date of death, the Court is
satisfied that such effective power should be construed as an
acceptance of the Trust A property within the meaning of section
2518. Regulations under that section make explicit reference not
only to exercise of a power of appointment but also more
generally to “directing others to act with respect to the
property or interest in property” as marks of acceptance. Sec.
25.2518-2(d)(1), Gift Tax Regs. Decedent’s conduct falls within
these guidelines.
Moreover, the estate’s further argument that decedent’s
execution of the power fails as an acceptance because it was not
specific to Mr. Engelman’s property is misplaced on account of
the timing issues inherent in the preceding discussion. The
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011