- 14 -
(3d Cir. 1969); Estate of Gribauskas v. Commissioner, 116 T.C.
142, 149 (2001), revd. on another issue 342 F.3d 85 (2d Cir.
2003).
B. Preliminary Matters
1. Annuities at Issue
Turning to the instant case, the Court notes at the outset
that the parties are in apparent concurrence that the annuities
with which we are concerned, for purposes of the question of
inclusion in the gross estate, are the rights to periodic
payments as extant under the terms of the settlement agreement.
Both parties explicitly recognize that the Allstate and Safeco
annuity contracts do not control, being merely the mechanisms
utilized by the payor to fund the legal obligations created by
and set forth in the settlement agreement. In absence of any
call for an alternative approach and cognizant that the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit has condoned this perspective in
analogous circumstances, albeit in an unpublished opinion (cited
by both parties), we proceed in a manner consistent with the
parties’ framework. See Arrington v. United States, 108 F.3d
1393 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
2. Parol Evidence
Given the foregoing, interpretation of the settlement
agreement will be central to resolution of the parties’ dispute
vis-a-vis inclusion of the annuities in the gross estate. The
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011