-55-
the main concepts of section 2518.7 I refuse to rely upon her
disclaimer to invalidate her disclaimer.
III. Differing Treatments in Wills and Disclaimers
Finally, there is little dispute that the estate would have
been allowed to deduct the present value of the annuity portion
of the Trust if Christiansen had made the bequest to the Trust in
her will. The Trust would be treated as a charitable lead
annuity trust, and the annuity interest would be a guaranteed
annuity interest. See sec. 20.2055-2(e)(1) and (2)(vi), Estate
Tax Regs. Guaranteed annuity interests are considered to be
7First, we would have to treat Christiansen’s daughter as
receiving the disclaimed property from her mother. This in fact
had not occurred as of the time of trial. Moreover, under sec.
2518(a), Christiansen’s daughter is treated as if the property
had never been transferred to her. Second, despite step one, we
would then have to treat Christiansen’s daughter as having
disclaimed the property she never received. Third, we would then
have to treat Christiansen’s daughter as having directed this
property that she hypothetically disclaimed into a trust in order
to fund it. The funding of this trust had not yet occurred as of
the time of trial. Further, under sec. 2518(b)(4), a disclaimant
cannot direct how the interest passes. Finally, after
hypothetical steps one through three above, that have not yet
occurred or never will occur, we would then invalidate the
disclaimer because the now-invalidated disclaimer funded the
trust.
Page: Previous 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008