- 29 -
death. Id. The annuity was funded through purchase of a
contract policy listing the initial payee as “‘Wilford Arrington
and Deborah Arrington, as Parents and Next Friends of William
Arrington, for the sole use and benefit of William Arrington,’”
and listing the contingent payee as the child’s estate. Id. at
146. The court held that the child was the sole beneficial owner
of the annuity, such that its value was includable in his gross
estate under section 2033. Id. at 147-148, 150.
The estate maintains that Arrington v. United States, supra,
is distinguishable on its facts largely because the annuity
payments there, unlike here, were directly traceable to the
child’s claims and because here, unlike there, decedent’s parents
were granted control to direct the payments to other than
decedent’s estate. As to the former, although the language of
the settlement agreement in Arrington v. United States, supra,
may have been more explicit in naming the child as the
beneficiary of the annuity, we find the overall structure of the
settlement agreement here to be equally persuasive. Notably, the
agreement in Arrington v. United States, supra, would appear to
have earmarked no compensation for the child’s parents, while
here decedent’s parents were designated as the payees of specific
sums. As to the latter complaint, we refer again to the fact
that the alleged control of decedent’s parents by its terms
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011