Estate of Rose B. Posner, Deceased, David B. Posner, Personal Representative - Page 17

                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011