- 14 -
trustee's ability to favor a noncharitable "income" beneficiary
through his management of the trust assets during the period
before the remainder vests.12 See Estate of Gillespie v.
Commissioner, 75 T.C. at 376-378; H. Rept. 91-413 (Part 1), supra
at 58-60, 1969-3 C.B. at 237-238; S. Rept. 91-552, supra at 86-
87, 1969-3 C.B. at 479.
Because the noncharitable beneficiaries' interests were not
fixed as required in section 2055(e)(3)(C)(ii), the only
remaining option for reformation was commencement of a judicial
proceeding to reform the trust within 90 days after the estate's
tax return was due. See sec. 2055(e)(3)(C)(iii). Since no such
proceeding was ever commenced, the estate has failed to satisfy
the requirements of section 2055(e)(3)(C)(iii). As a result, the
remainder interest at issue is not a "reformable interest", which
precludes any reformation whereby it could meet the requirements
for a deduction under section 2055(e)(2).
While this result may seem harsh, the legislative history
makes clear that Congress intended a tightly circumscribed
reformation rule. Congress was concerned that an overly liberal
rule would permit abuse; namely, that taxpayers would not reform
12 In this regard, we note that although the governing
instrument gave the trustee authority to act with respect to the
trust assets "in all manners consistent with the laws of the
States of Illinois and Massachusetts", the trustee could sell
stock held by the trust only upon the approval of Wanda
Rodgerson, one of the noncharitable beneficiaries.
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