- 28 -
representatives, see Estate of Marine v. Commissioner, 97 T.C.
368, 378-379 (1991), affd. 990 F.2d 136 (4th Cir. 1993), or of
beneficiaries of the estate, see Bach v. McGinnes, 333 F.2d 979,
983-984 (3d Cir. 1964).
Here, we agree with respondent that the circumstances of
this case preclude treating the amounts received by the Trust B
beneficiaries as having been transferred by decedent. Rather,
the record reveals that those named in Trust B obtained
distributions on account of discretionary acts by Ms. Mattson.
By the terms of the Engelman Living Trust, allocation to Trust B
was conditioned on an effective disclaimer under section 2518.
Ms. Mattson’s decision to place assets in Trust B and ultimately
to distribute the property to the named beneficiaries
consequently did not occur within the framework of the trust
instrument. The estate’s suggestion that we disregard the
written language as merely an advisory reminder to the trustee is
unsupported and unconvincing. The relevant documents do not show
that a State law disclaimer could suffice to render operative the
provisions of Trust B.
Furthermore, even if a disclaimer effective under State
statutes could operate to transfer assets from Trust A to Trust B
within the confines of the written agreement, we have already
concluded that the disclaimer executed here would not be
recognized under pertinent California law. As a result,
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011