- 33 -
appointment in favor of a skip generation triggers a taxable
generation-skipping transfer of property.
Rather than distinguishable, as the Courts of Appeals for
the Eighth and Ninth Circuits concluded, see Simpson v. United
States, 183 F.3d at 815; Bachler v. United States, 281 F.3d at
1080, the post-September 25, 1985, exercise of general powers of
appointment that were involved in Simpson and in Bachler are more
egregious, or rather, are more obvious post-September 25, 1985,
independent and discretionary transfers of property subject to
the GST tax than was the deemed transfer involved in Peterson
Marital Trust v. Commissioner, 78 F.3d 795 (2d Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, the transfer that occurred in this case (and in
Simpson and in Bachler) would appear to be a clearer case for
application of the GST tax than the transfer in Peterson Marital
Trust, since the surviving spouse herein affirmatively made a
generation-skipping transfer, while the spouse in Peterson
Marital Trust did so only by default. See Harrington & Acker,
Estates, Gifts, and Trusts: Generation Skipping Tax, 850 Tax
Mgmt. (BNA), A-73 (2002).
The interpretations of TRA 1986 section 1433(b)(2)(A) that
are reflected in the Peterson Marital Trust opinions of this
Court and of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
that are reflected in the various versions of Treasury
regulations that have been promulgated over the years, and also
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011