- 17 -
v. Fidelity-Baltimore Natl. Bank & Trust Co., 115 A.2d 711 (Md.
1955).9
Items II and XIV of Mr. Posner’s will refer to the Federal
estate tax marital deduction. On this basis, respondent argues
that this case comes squarely within the rationale of Guiney v.
United States, 425 F.2d 145 (4th Cir. 1970). In Guiney v. United
States, supra at 147, the testator used the words “general power
of appointment” to describe the power given to his wife and
referenced “the marital deduction as provided by the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954”. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit found that this “unmistakably precise language”
manifested “a clear and forthright desire to clothe his widow
with the ‘general power of appointment’ necessary to accomplish
the marital deduction and by express reference brought the power
he created squarely within the Code’s requirements.” Id. at 149.
The Court of Appeals concluded:
Thus, the widow here is given specific authorization to
appoint to herself or her estate, as the testator
9 Moreover, we do not construe item XIV of Mr. Posner’s will
as a granting clause giving decedent a general power of
appointment. Instead, we agree with the statement of the court
of special appeals in Gordon v. Posner, 790 A.2d at 678, that
item XIV is more in the nature of a “marital deduction ‘savings
clause.’” Cf. Estate of Fine v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 1068
(1988) (holding that a will provision precluding the executor
from taking any discretionary action that would diminish the
marital deduction did not affect the means or order of
distribution of the estate as set forth in other will
provisions), affd. without published opinion 885 F.2d 879 (11th
Cir. 1989).
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011