- 30 -
to disclose the purpose of the testator in using the
testamentary language. * * * [Levey v. Smith, supra at
648; fn. ref. omitted.]
To like effect:
The fact that the gift involved here was used for
a charitable purpose presents plaintiff’s most
appealing argument. But this is not sufficient to meet
the requirements of sec. 2055(a)(3). If the right to
make the deduction could be met by showing only a
charitable use of the contribution, the applicability
of the estate tax in all similar situations would
depend upon the vagaries of post-estate planning. The
testator, and he alone, must order the recipient to
hold or use the contribution exclusively for charitable
purposes. Further, the statute does not permit the
deduction unless it is shown that the testator intended
that the gift be used exclusively for a charitable
project. * * * [Contl. Ill. Natl. Bank & Trust Co. v.
United States, supra at 725-726; emphasis added.]
Here, the language in the trust agreement pertaining to the
foreign bequest reads in its entirety: “The remainder of the
Trust Estate shall be distributed to the STATE OF ISRAEL.” Thus,
the governing instrument is devoid of any restrictions
circumscribing uses of the gift. Moreover, the record contains
no evidence from which it can be inferred that decedent intended
to limit the contribution to charitable purposes. It is
noteworthy that Decision 6171, on which the estate relies, did
not come into being until October 1995, long after the provision
granting the residue of Trust B to the State of Israel was
executed as part of the Engelman Living Trust on January 10,
1990. Accordingly, Decision 6171 sheds no light on decedent’s
intentions and, as a unilateral declaration by the donee, is
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