- 18 -
obviously was not referring to a Maryland (limited)
general power of appointment. By his use of the words
“general power of appointment,” coupled with his
expressed “intention to take advantage of the marital
deduction as provided by the Internal Revenue Code of
1954,” the testator was clearly referring to the
general power of appointment provisions of section 2041
of the Code, which empower the donee to appoint to
herself or her estate. [Id. at 150.]
Unlike the will in Guiney, Mr. Posner’s will contains no
language referring to a “general power of appointment” and,
indeed, contains no substantive dispositions of the marital trust
property. Item II of Mr. Posner’s will does not expressly
provide for the disposition of income or principal of the marital
trust, and it contains no direction regarding the distribution of
principal upon termination of the trust. It refers only to the
Federal estate tax marital deduction. Item XIV also refers to
the marital deduction but contains no language that we might
reasonably interpret to grant decedent a general power of
appointment. The references to the marital deduction alone in
items II and XIV are insufficient to create a general power of
appointment in decedent’s favor. See Estate of Pierpont v.
Commissioner, 336 F.2d at 281.
D. Conclusion
In conclusion, we defer to the ruling of the court of
special appeals that Mr. Posner’s will gave decedent no
testamentary power of appointment. Moreover, we believe that the
Maryland Court of Appeals would conclude, as the court of special
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011