- 13 -
payment of the real estate taxes on decedent's Sandwich,
Massachusetts, residence is not expressed as a specified dollar
amount (or calculable as such) or as a fixed percentage of fair
market value; thus, the payment for taxes is not fixed as
required under section 2055(e)(3)(C)(ii). More significantly,
the provision for payment to Melissa and Erica Rodgerson of the
balance of the trust's "net income" (after satisfaction of the
payments directed for other noncharitable beneficiaries) is
neither a specified dollar amount nor a fixed percentage of fair
market value. Indeed, by providing for a payout of net income to
a noncharitable beneficiary, the trust's terms would enable the
specific abuse to which the 1969 Act rules (i.e., the provisions
of section 2055(e)(2)) were addressed; namely, the reduction of
the value of the remainder interest actually passing to charity
below the amount of the deduction claimed, because of the
11(...continued)
2055(e)(3)(C)(i); i.e., the remainder interest would not be an
allowable deduction under pre-1969-Act law because the payments
are not "ascertainable". We note that the trust instrument
provides, immediately after directing the foregoing payments,
that "the balance of the trust net income" is to be paid to two
other beneficiaries. This juxtaposition gives rise to a possible
interpretation that the payments to Wanda Rodgerson and Migle
Francaite are limited to the trust's net income, and the estate
makes an argument on similar grounds that the remainder interest
was ascertainable. However, we find it unnecessary to decide
whether the remainder interest satisfies sec. 2055(e)(3)(C)(i),
as the remainder interest's failure to satisfy sec.
2055(e)(3)(C)(ii) precludes a finding that it is a "reformable
interest" in any event.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011