-46-
A. Overly Broad Interpretation
The majority disallows the disclaimer on the grounds that
Christiansen’s daughter retained a contingent remainder in the
Trust. The majority interprets the example in section 25.2518-
2(e)(3), Gift Tax Regs., to mean that retaining any remainder in
a trust that receives disclaimed property will always disqualify
the disclaimer. The majority relies upon the italicized sentence
in the example in section 25.2518-2(e)(3), Gift Tax Regs., to
conclude that this italicized sentence “seems to resolve this
issue.”1 See majority op. p. 16. It seems to me that the
majority ignores the other sentences in this section including
the immediately preceding sentence that focuses on whether the
property is severable. The majority disregards any
severable/nonseverable analysis to disqualify the disclaimer.
This interpretation is inconsistent with several other important
provisions of the regulation.
First, had the drafters of this regulation intended to
establish such a broad rule, the drafters would not have included
the severable/nonseverable language immediately before the
italicized sentence. The sentence upon which the majority relies
is simply an illustration to distinguish the consequences of
1The majority italicized this sentence in its reproduction
of sec. 25.2518-2(e)(3), Gift Tax Regs. The italics do not
appear in the regulation itself.
Page: Previous 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008