- 8 -
decedent’s will in such a manner as to effectuate decedent’s
“probable intent” to this end. According to petitioner,
decedent’s intent was to minimize taxes, and to accomplish this
petitioner seeks to require us to apply the probable intent
doctrine as formulated by New Jersey statutory law and case law.
See N.J. Stat. Ann. sec. 3B:3-33 (West 1983); Fid. Union Trust
Co. v. Robert, 178 A.2d 185 (N.J. 1962). To do so we are asked
to read decedent’s will in such a way as to exclude the second
sentence of Article THIRD (A): “This amount shall not be reduced
on account of any disclaimer by my wife.” We decline to do so.
The fatal defect in petitioner’s argument is that
petitioner’s intent, if such it was, to minimize taxes was
thwarted, not by any ambiguous language in the will, but by the
Disclaimer. As pointed out above, the Disclaimer disclaims both
specified shares (and fractional shares) of certain stocks, and
also the disclaiming wife’s interest in the Trust. Article
FOURTH (B) of the will provides that if decedent’s wife disclaims
any interest in property that would otherwise pass outright to
her under Article FOURTH such property is to be added to the
trust created under Article THIRD. Thus, it was the Disclaimer,
and not decedent’s will, that caused the Trust to be funded with
more than the “aggregate federal estate tax exemption
equivalent”. Absent the Disclaimer the Trust would have been
funded with only the “aggregate federal estate tax exemption
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011