- 14 -
to the contrary, the “designation of the spouse as sole income
beneficiary for life of the entire interest or a specific portion
of the entire interest will be sufficient”. Sec. 20.2056(b)-
5(f)(1), Estate Tax Regs.
2. Interpretation of a Trust Agreement
A determination of the nature of the interest that passes to
the surviving spouse is made pursuant to the law of the
jurisdiction under which the interest passes. Estate of
Nicholson v. Commissioner, supra at 672-673. In the instant
case, that is the law of Arkansas. The decisions of the State’s
highest court are conclusive as to that State’s law.
Commissioner v. Estate of Bosch, 387 U.S. 456 (1967).
In Aycock Pontiac, Inc. v. Aycock, 983 S.W.2d 915, 919-920
(1998), the Supreme Court of Arkansas stated:
The cardinal rule in construing a trust instrument is
that the intention of the settlor must be ascertained.
Little Rock University v. Donaghey Found., 252 Ark.
1148, 483 S.W.2d 230 (1972). In construing a trust, we
apply the same rules applicable to the construction of
wills. See Murphy v. Morris, 200 Ark. 932, 141 S.W.2d
518 (1940).
The paramount principle in the interpretation of
wills is that the intention of the testator governs.
In re Estate of Lindsey, 309 Ark. 596, 832 S.W.2d 808
(1992). This intention is to be determined from
viewing the four corners of the instrument, considering
the language used, and giving meaning to all of its
provisions, whenever possible. Id.; In re Estate of
Conover, 304 Ark. 268, 801 S.W.2d 299 (1990). * * *
The court should give force to each clause of the will,
and only when there is an irreconcilable conflict
between two clauses must one give way to the other.
Estate of Lindsey, 309 Ark. 596, 832 S.W.2d 808. * * *
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011