-53-
25.2518-3(a)(1)(ii), Gift Tax Regs. The Foundation, as the
holder of the annuity, can do nothing to affect the contingent
remainder. Similarly, Christiansen’s daughter, as the holder of
the contingent remainder, cannot do anything to affect the fixed
7 percent of the corpus to be paid annually under the annuity.
The two separate parts are in no way dependent on one another,
contrary to the majority’s holding.
The majority also fails to consider another key distinction
between Walshire and this case. The disclaimant in Walshire
unilaterally created the interests, and the disclaimant retained
the life estate that he had personally created in the property.
Walshire v. United States, supra at 344-345. The disclaimant
thus retained the life estate because of his decision to carve
the property into separate interests, not because the property he
disclaimed passed to a trust in which the disclaimant happened to
hold an interest. On the other hand, Christiansen, not her
daughter, created the separate interests in the Trust. See sec.
25.2518-3(a)(1), Gift Tax Regs. Christiansen’s daughter did not
create any property interest whatsoever. She merely disclaimed a
fraction of the property passing to her under the will.5
5There is also a theoretical distinction between Walshire v.
United States, supra, and this case. A disclaimer permits a
beneficiary to step back and allow property to be passed to a
third party without incurring another level of tax. The
situation in Walshire, where the disclaimant disclaimed a
remainder in property left to him but kept a life estate, is akin
(continued...)
Page: Previous 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008