i i i i i i



### OPIN ION
No
. 04 -0 7- 00 85 1- CV I n re E S T AT E O F Gilbert M. DENMAN , Dec ease d Fr om the Probate Court No. 1, B exar County , Texas Trial Court No. 2004-PC-1687-B Honora ble Polly J ackson Spenc er, Judge Presiding Opinion by : Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Justi ce

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: Aug ust 27, 2008 MOTI ON TO D I SMI SS GR ANTED; DI SMI SSED I N PART FOR WANT OF J URI SDI CTI ON; AFF I RMED This is an appea l from the proba te c o u r t’ s judg ment construing section 2603(b) of the Interna l Revenue Code and provisions i n t h e wi l l of Gilbert M. De nman, J r. (“ the Will ”) to de termine the proper allocation of the fede ral g ener ation-skipping transfe r tax (“GST tax”). Appellants L eroy G. Denman, Jr., as i ndepende nt coexecutor (“ Denman” ), and Wende l Denman Thuss, a benef iciary under the W i l l (“Thuss”) , urg ed the tax should be char g ed and a llocated to the r esiduary estate. Ap pe lle e s T he Tr

us t Co mpa

ny , a c oe xec uto r o f t

he Will a nd c o- tr us te e of a tr us t c re a te d b y

the Will, and bene ficiar ies Trinity

University

in San Antonio (“Tr inity ”) and the S an Antonio M useum of Ar t (“the Museum”), a dvocate d the tax shoul d b e al l o ca t ed to the El Capote Ranc h, which wa s04
- 07
- 00 85 1- CV

- 2- transfe rre d to Thuss in a codicil to the Wil l. The trial court re ndere d a fina l judgment de clar ing the GST tax should be char g ed and allocated to the El Capote Ranc h. Denman a nd Thuss eac h perf

ecte d
an a pp e a l. T he Tr

us t Co mpa

ny , jo ine d b y

Tr ini ty and the Mu se um, f

il ed a mo ti on to d ism iss De nma n’ s a pp e a l f or wa nt o f j ur isd ic tio n b a se d o n a n a bs e nc e of sta nd ing . We g ra

nt the mot ion

to dismiss and af

firm the trial c ourt’s judg ment.

F ACT UAL AND P R OC EDU R A L B ACKG ROUND I n 1988, Gilbert De nman (“ the Dec edent” ) executed a hologr aphic will. B etwee n 1991 and 2 0 0 2 , h e e xe c u te d

f o u r c o d ic il s to th e Wi ll
. I n

A rti c le X I I Io f

th e Wi ll , th e D e c e d e n t b e qu e a the d
on e - h a lf o f th e r e s id

u ar y o f th e e s tate to T r in it

y an d th e o th e r h a lf to T h e T r ust Company

and D e n m ana s t r

u s t e e s o f a t r u s t( “ t h e T r

u s t ” ) c r e a t e d

i nt h e W i l l f

o r t h e b e n e f

i t o f t h e M u s e u m . In 20 02 , th e De c e de nt e xec ute d A rt ic le I V o f t he c od ic il t o th e Will i n w hic h h e be qu e a the d to Thus s, his thi rd c ou sin , all of his re a l pro pe rt y in Gu a da lup e and Go nza le s Coun tie s as we ll a s th e anim a ls and fa rm equipment t here on. This proper ty is known as El Capote R anch ( “the Ranc h”). The parties d o n o t d is p u te th a t th e D e c e d e n t’ s b e qu e s t to T h u s s g a v e r is e to th e f e d e r a l G ST tax imposed by Chapter 13 of

the Interna l Revenue Code. See 26 U.S.C. § 2601. The De cede nt died on May 16, 2004, and the Will was admitted to p robate in J une of that y ear . I n Aug ust 2005, The Trust C o m p an y an d De n man filed the e state’s fe dera l tax return. T he return, w hich was sig ned by Denman and a repr esentative of The Trust Company , apportioned a nd char g ed pay

ment of the GST tax to the R anch bequeathed t o Thuss. The amount of the GST tax as apportioned a

nd char g ed in the tax return wa s $913,868. Thuss disag ree d with the pos ition taken by The Trust Company and Denman i n the fe dera l tax return. He c ontended Ar ticle XI I of t he W ill, which provides for a llocation of taxes, removed04
- 07
- 00 85 1- CV

T he T r us t C om pany f

i l ed a pl ea i n abat ement s eek i ng t o j oi n D enman as a n ece s s ar y par t y i n h i s ca paci t y as 1 a c o -trus te e . In r e sp o n se , D e n m a n a g re e d to b e b o u n d a s a c o -trus te e b y a n y ju d g m e n t i n this m a tter
.

- 3- the GST tax burden from him as t h e t ra nsfer ee of the Ranch a

nd place d it on the residuar y estate. B e c a us e of Thus s’ s con te nti on , The Tr us t Compa

ny a nd De nma

n, a s c oe xec uto rs and

c o- tr us te e s, filed a pe tition i n the probate cour t seekinga dec lara t o ry

judgme nt that the GST tax should be alloca t ed and c harg ed to the prope rty transfe rre d to Thuss. They argued sec tion 2603(b) of the I nte rn a l Re ve nu e Cod e mand a te s the ta x on a g e ne ra tio n- sk ipp ingtr ans fe r b e c ha rg e d to the pr op e rt

y tr ans fe rr e d unle ss o the rw ise dir e c te d by the g ov e rn ing ins tr ume nt thr ou g h a

“ sp e c if ic re fe re nc e to the tax im posed” unde r Chapter 13 and the Wil l did not conta in the require d specific ref ere nce. See id. § 2 60 3( b) . T hu ss c ounte rclaim ed, a sse rt ingthat be c a us e Ar tic le XI Iof

the Will s pe c if

ic a lly ref err ed to the GST tax the transfer tax burden should fall on the residua ry estate. After The Tr ust Company

and De nman filed a

motion for summary

judgme nt, Denman chang ed his position on the tax burde n, deciding his g randson was corr ect and that the Dec edent’ s int e nt a s e xpre sse d in

the Will w a s th a t th e GST tax be imp os e d o n th e re sid ua ry e state . A s a

re su lt, Denman obtained new counsel and, solely in his capa city as coexecutor, filed amende d p et i t ions g ener ally adopting Thuss’s position. 1 Th e Tr us t Co mpa

ny , jo ine d b y

Tr ini ty , f ile d a n ame nd e d m ot io n fo r s umm ary jud g me nt, Denman a

nd Thuss filed a c ross-motion for summary judgme nt, and t h e probate court he ard argument on all the m otions. The court rende red a final judg ment on November 9, 2007, g ranting the motion for summary

judgme nt filed by The Tr

ust Company

and Trinity

and deny ing the one filed by Denman a

nd Thuss. The probate court decla red the Wil l did not direct the GST tax for the Ranch to be paid fr om the residuar y estate so “the GST tax must thus be charg ed to such property ,” i.e., the04
- 07
- 00 85 1- CV

- 4- Ranch. The probate court impliedly found t he W ill did not contain a suf ficiently specific ref

ere nce to the GST tax to remove it f rom the statutory scheme of section 2603(b) of the I nterna l R ev enue Code. Denma

n and Thuss appe aled. A PP ELLATE S T ANDI NG The Tr ust Company , joined by Trinity and the Museum, move to dism iss Denman’s a ppeal for wa nt of jurisdiction. They argue Denman, as coexecutor of the e state, lac ks standing be cause the interests of the e state we re not injured or prejudice d by

the probate cour

t’s judgme nt. The standing doctr ine identifies suits appropriate for judicia l determination. Brown v. Todd , 53 S.W .3d 297, 305 (Tex. 2001). Standing is a co m p o n en t o f subj ect matter jurisdiction and, as such, is a question of law
. Id . at 305 n.3. “Te x as courts have longheld that an a ppealingparty

may not co m p l ain of e rror s that do not injuriousl y aff ect it or that mer ely

aff ect the r ights of othe rs.” Torringt on Co. v. Stutzman , 4 6 S. W.3 d 8 29 , 8 43 (T e x. 20 00 ). Whil e a pa rt y of re c or d is g e ne ra lly entitled to appellate review , that party must be prejudiced before he has standingto appea l. Aguir re
v. P h i l l ips Props., Inc. , 111 S.W .3d 328, 335 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2003, pet. denied); Gorman v. G orman , 966 S.W .2d 858, 864 (Tex. A pp.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. denied) . The appellant bear s the burden of making a prima f acie showing of pre

judice. Gorman , 966 S.W .2d at 86 4. Ac c or din g ly , D e nma n is re qu ir e d to make a pr ima fa c ie sh ow ing that e ith e r he , in h is c a pa c ity
as coe x ecutor , or the e state itself wa s prejudice d or injuriou s l y af fe ct ed by the probate cour

t’s judgme nt. See id. De nma n c la ims he ha s st and ingin h is c a pa c ity a s c oe xec uto r on tw o ba se s: (1 ) h is d uty to
ensure a p r o p e r c o n s tr

u c ti o n o f th e Wi ll , an d ( 2 ) th e p o s s ib il it y h e c o u ld b e h e ld li a

b le for a ny defic iency

arising from an incorre ct interpre tation of the Will . Wit h reg ard to his first conte ntion,04
- 07
- 00 85 1- CV

- 5- De n m a nar g u e s T e xa s c o urt s h a v e g e n e r a l l y r e c o g n i z e d

ane xe c u t o r ’ s s t an d i n g t o a p p e a l pr ob a te court ruling s. Se e Dr e w v . J arv is , 110 Te x. 13 6, 21 6 S. W. 6 18 (1 91 9) ; Read v. Ge e , 551 S.W .2d 496 (Tex. Civ. App.–Fort Worth), wr it r e f’d n . r.e. , 561 S.W .2d 777 (Tex. 1977); Pipkin v. Hay s , 48 2 S.W.2 d 59 (T e x. Civ . App .– Au sti n 197 2, wr it re f’ d n.r .e .)
. De nma n sug g e sts the se c a se s h old an executor a lway s has standing to appea l probate c ourt ruli ng s. We disagr ee. N one of the authorities cited by

Denman so hold or suppor t such a broa d proposition. See id. I n Drew , an administratrix appea led a pr obate c ourt’s orde r withdraw ing the estate f rom administration. 216 S.W . at 618. The supr eme court held t he adminis tratrix had standingto appea l be c a us e sh e ha d a

du ty to r e c ov e r the e state and

to w ith ho ld i t f

ro m th os e no t e nti tle d to re c e ive it to a void f inancial loss to the estate
. Id . at 620. In Read , the appe llate cour t held the executor ha d stan d i n g t o ap p ea l an orde r direc ting him to deliver a ll of the estate’ s assets to the executrix of a second e state. 551 S.W.2d at 498, 500. The e x ecutor soug ht to appeal on the g round that neither the executor nor the benef iciarie s were g iven notice of the hear ing that produce d the orde r and w ere not pr esent or repr esente d by counsel. Id. at 500. Although the court did not specif ically mention
an a dv e rs e imp a c t on

the e state , th e du e pr oc e ss e rr or s ob vio us ly ha d a n a dv e rs e imp a c t on

the e state beca use i t was not repr esente d at t he hearing that resulted in an order dis posing of all of t he estate’s assets. See id. Finally , in Pi

pk in , a coe x ecutr ix , in he r individual c apac ity as a be nefic iary of her mother’s will, appeale d on an issue involving a llocation of taxes. 482 S.W
. 2 d at 59-60. The executrix ’s individual interests were adver sely aff ecte d by the trial cour

t’s deter mination that tax es we re to be char g ed ag ainst the individual devises rathe r than the r esiduary estate. Id . at 60. B eca u s e the04
- 07
- 00 85 1- CV

- 6- coexecutrix was injuriously aff ecte d by the trial cour

t’s judgme nt, she had standing as an individual devisee to contest that judg ment on appea l. See Torrington , 46 S.W .3d at 843. Denman doe s not and ca

nnot argue the pr o b at e co u rt ’s ruli ng had an a dverse or injurious eff ect on the e state. The undisputed e vidence established that if the probate court rule d as sug g ested by Denman a

nd Thuss, the estate w ould incur an inc rea sed tax burden of more than $400,000 – an obvious adver se conse quence to the estate. Se e Op pe nh e im e r, Bl e nd

, H arris on & Tat e , 192 S.W .3d 780, 785-87 (Te x . 2 0 0 6 ) (recog nizi ng , in context of lega l malprac tice ac tion, that increa sed tax conseque nces a

re a dverse eff

ect on e state). The only

party adver sely

aff ecte d by the probate cour t ju d g me n t i s T h u s s , w h o is r e s p o n s ib le u nder th e c o u rt’ s r u li n g f o r p ay me n t o f th e G ST tax. Acc ording ly , Denman ha s not made a p ri m a facie c ase showingthat the estate will be injured or prejudice d if he is not permitted to appe al. Denman c ites sever al ca ses from other jurisdictions holdi ng that beca use an executor has the duty to c arr

y out the intent of the testator, he has standing to seek a ppellate r eview if

he believe s the probate court incor

rec tly interpre ted the will. Se e Br own v . P e te rs , 3 50 N. E. 2d 56 5, 56 6 (I ll. App. Ct. 1976) (holding that while executor ha s no pers o n al p ro perty rig ht, he has pe rsonal responsibility to ensure will is probate d in acc ordanc e with testator’s intent and this intere st confer s
a pp e llate sta

nd ing ); In re Su c c essi on of S c hir o , 6 9 1 So.2d 1374, 1376-77 (L a. Ct. App.), wri t denied , 7 00 So. 2d

51 8 ( 19 97 ) ( ho ldi nge xec uto r m ay a pp e a l f ro m jud g me nt i nte rp re tin g wi ll b e c a us e he ha s duty to ca

rr y ou t pr ov isi on s o f w ill a s h e un de rs tand s th e m) ; Budin v. Levy , 180 N.E.2d 74, 76 ( M a s s . 1 9 6 2 ) ( h o l d i n g e xe c u t o r h a s d u t y t o c ar r y o u t t e s t a t o r ’ s i n t e n t an d t h u s h a s st a nd ing to
a p p e a l i f h e b e l i e v e s j u d g m e n ti s c o n t r ar y t o t e s t a t o r ’ s int e nt) ; Ho w ard Sav. Inst. of Newark v. Pee p , 1 70 A. 2d

39 , 4 2 (N. J
. 19 61 ) (h old ingthat be c a us e e xec uto r h a s d

uty to e ns ur e e state is04
- 07
- 00 85 1- CV

- 7- distributed in accor dance with testator’s wishes, ex ecutor has st anding to appea l if he be lieves lower court ha s ruled contr ary

to testator’s intent). How ever , no Texas case has adopte d the positions espoused by

these jurisdictions and, base d on exis ting law , the re quirements for appellate standing in T exas a

re clea rly more rig orous. Se e Aguir re , 1 11 S.W. 3d

a t 33 5; Gorman , 966 S.W .2d at 864. We decline to broa den appe llate standing to allow an ex ec u t o r to appe al when ne ither he nor the estate is adve rsely

aff ecte d by the probate cour

t’s judgme nt. De nma n’ s se c on d stand ing argume nt is ba se d o n h is o wn a lle g e d p ote nti a l pe rs on a l li a bil ity in t h e e v e n t o f

an y tax d e f ic ie n c y r e s u lt in g f

r o m a nin c o r r e c t r u li n g f r o m t h e p r o b a te c o u rt. The parties ag ree that under certa in circ umstances feder al l aw impos es l iability on estate r epre sentatives fo r p ay me nt o f t a xes: A re prese ntative of . . . a

n estate
. . . paying a

ny part of a debt of the

. . . es t at e b ef

ore pa y ing a claim of the G overnme nt is li able to the e xten t of the pa y me nt f or un pa id c la ims of

the Go ve rnme nt. 31 U.S.C. § 3713(b). Denma n sug g ests, as does a

literal re ading of sec tion 3713(b), this provision imp os e s st

ri c t li a bil ity on an e state re pr e se ntativ e wh e n he make s a dis tr ibutio n th a t le a ve s th e e state with insuff

icient funds to pa

y a debt owed to the fede ral g overnme nt. See Leigh v. Comm’r , 7 2 T .C. 11 05 , 110 9 (19 79 ) (c on str uin g pr e de c e sso r of se c tio n 371 3( b) ). Ho we ve r, “ [i]t ha s b e e n lo nghe ld t h at i n o rd er t o re n d er

a f i d u ci ary p er s o n al l y

l i ab l e . . . h e m u s tfi rs tb e c h ar geab l e w i t h kn o wl ed ge or notice o f th e d e b t d

u e to th e U n it e d St a te s , a t a ti me w h e n th e e s tate h a d s u f f ic ie n t a s s e ts from which to pa

y this de bt.” Id
. (c i t i n g W

ant v. Comm’r , 2 80 F .2 d 7 77 (2 d Ci r. 19 60 ); U.S. v. Vibradamp Cor p ., 257 F.Supp. 931 (S.D. Cal. 1966); Irving Trust Co. v. Comm’r , 36 B. T. A. 14 6 ( 19 37 )) ; see
a l s o Bec kwith v. Comm’r , 6 9 T .C. M. (C CH ) 1 67 8 ( 19 95 ); Estate of Frost v. Comm’r , 65 T. C.M
. (C CH ) 2 10 1 ( 19 93 ). “ Th e iss ue a s to notic e is wh e the r the e xec uto r k ne w o r w a s c ha

rg e a ble wi th04
- 07
- 00 85 1- CV

- 8- kn ow le dg e of

the de bt – tha t is, whe the r the e xec uto r wa s in poss e ssi on of su c h fa c ts as to ‘p ut h im on inquiry .’” Fr os t , 6 5 T
. C
. M
. 2 1 0 1 (q u o t i n g New v. Comm’r , 48 T.C. 671 (1967)). De nma n a rgue s th a t if

his int e rp re tatio n o f the Will i s c or re c t and the re sid ua ry e state is
c ha rg e d w iththe GST ta x, the tax bur de n o n th e e state wi ll b e muc h h ig he r t ha n if the pr ob a te court’s inter

pretation is upheld. He c laims that if the probate court’s judg ment “stands uncor rec ted,” he and Th e Tr us t Co mpa

ny may be c ome pe rs on a lly

lia ble fo r any

de fi c ie nc y

in t he ta xes d ue and thi s potential persona l liabilit y g ives him a justiciable intere st in the appea l. We disagr ee. D enman ha s
no t be e n p ut o n n oti c e of

any GST ta x de fi c ie nc y du e to the Un ite d St a te s. Th e GST ta x ch arg e d to Ranc h h a s b e e n p a id. Th e re c or d c on ta ins no e vid e nc e that th e I nte rn a l Re ve nu e Se rv ic e is examining the estate’s liability or cla iming any

additional tax i s due. Moreove r, eve n if we a ssume Denman ha s notice of a debt base d o n h i s belief that the probate court e rre d in its t ax allocation, he is not ex posed to any tax liability

under se ction 3713(b). I f this matter we re to be finally decide d in f

avor of Denman’ s interpre tation and the estate wer e the re by to i nc ur a dd iti on a l tax de bt, Den man wou ld o nly have to w a it unti l th e ta xes w e re pa id
a c c or din g to t

he fi na l ju dg me nt t o d istri bu te the e state
. Se c tio n 371 3( b) imp os e s p e rs on a l li a bil ity on estate r epre sentatives only if they distribute the estate before satisfying th e estate’s debt to the fede ral g overnme nt. 31 U.S.C. § 3713(b). Acc ording ly , Denman doe s not fac e any potential injury from the pr obate court’s judgme nt in his c apac ity as executor – unless he de cides to distribute the estate be fore Thuss’s appe al is finally resolved. We hold Denman lac ks standing to pr osecute this appeal. Ac cording ly , we g rant the motion to dismi ss for wa

nt of jurisdiction and dismiss Denman’ s appea l. Be cause Thuss has also appe aled, raising the same issues a s Denman, w e must addre ss the merits.04
- 07
- 00 85 1- CV

- 9- A LLOC A TI ON OF THE G E NE RAT I ON S KI P P I NG T RANS F E R T AX

Stan dard of Revie w We revie w a trial court’ s order g rantingsummary

judgme nt de novo. Valence Operating Co.

v . D or se tt , 164 S.W .3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005). “When conducting a de novo revie w, the re viewing tribunal exercises its own j udg ment and redeter mines eac h issue of fa ct and law .” Quick v . City of Au sti n , 7 S.W .3d 109, 116 (Tex. 1998). No defere nce is g iven t o the l ower court’s decision. See id. When both parties move for summary judgme n t o n t he same issue and the tria l court g rants one mot ion and de nie s th e oth e r, we c on sid e r the summa ry jud g me nt e vid e nc e pr e se nte d b y bo th p art ie s, deter mine all questions presente d, and, if we deter mine the trial cou rt err ed, we must render the judgme nt the trial court should have rende red. Valence , 164 S.W .3d at 661. The parties ag ree the only issue in dispute – the interpre tation a statute g overningallocation of ta x es – is a question of law
. Se e J oh ns on v . City of Fo rth W or th , 77 4 S.W. 2d 65 3, 65 6 ( Te x. 19 89 ); In re K.L.V. , 109 S.W .3d 61, 64 (Tex. App.–For

t Worth 2003, pet. denied). Anal y sis Th e pa rt ie s a g re e se c tio n 2 60 3( b) of the I nte rn a l Re ve nu e Cod e is unambi g uo us and c on tr ols thi s a pp e a l. S e c tio n 2 30 6( b) pr ov ide s: Unless otherw ise direc ted pursuant to the g overning i n s t rument by specific ref

ere nce to the tax imposed by this c hapter , the tax i mposed by thi s cha

pte r on a g e ne ra

tio n- sk ipp ingtr ans fe r s ha ll b e c ha rg e d to the prope rty

constituting such tra

nsfer
. 26 U.S.C. § 2603(b).04
- 07
- 00 85 1- CV

T he po r t i on of

Art i cl e X I I not i ncl uded r ef ers t o pay ment s t o t r us t bene f i ci ar i es wh o ar e mi nor s or un der 2 d isa b ili ty an d is i rr e le v a n t t o a d e te rm ina tio n o f t h e tax issu e .

- 10- Ar tic le I V o f t

he fo ur th c od ic il t o th e Will, e xec ute d o n July 17 , 2 00 2, state s: Iwill, be queath and devise to Wendel Denman Thuss a ll of [m y ] real e state in Gua da lup e and Go nza le s Co un ti es, Te xas; and a ll m y animals and fa

rm equipment situated ther e. Ar tic le XI Iof

the Will s tate s, in p e rt ine nt p art : 2 Any transfe r, e s t ate, inher itance, suc cession and othe r death tax es which shal l b ecome pay able by rea son of my

death sha ll be apportioned a s follows: Any taxes attributa

b le to a ny proper ty passing under my exercise of

power s of appointment in para g ra p h X [and I believe the re w ill be no tax es on this ex erc ise of my power s of appointment as they

wer e limited in the case of my g randmother ’s will and as Irestric ted and r elinquished those power s under the g ift and leg acy

b y m y g randf

ather prior to 1952 in order

to make them nontaxable] shall be allocated on a pr o ra ta basis to that leg acy and shall be paid out o f t h e p roper ty there by transfe rre d, any

other such taxes shall be paid out of my residuar y estate. The pa rties ag ree the devise of

the Ranch to Thuss wa s a gen er at i on-skipping tr ansfe r as de fi ne d b y

se c tio n 2 61 1 o f t

he I nte rn a l Re ve nu e Cod e . T he pa rt ie s ag re e thi s tra

ns fe r i s su

bje c t to the GST tax. See id. § 2601. The parties also ag ree fede ral lawmandates the GST tax be cha rg ed to the Ranch unless the Will dire cts otherwise “ by specific ref

ere nce to the ta x imposed” by section 2603(b). See id. § 2603(b). The only dispute is whether Article XI I of t he Will s pecif ically ref ers to the GST tax as one of

the taxes to be paid by

the re siduary

estate. Thoug h Thuss asserts in his brief that “[t] he issue in this c ase is whether the tax allocation provision of Gilbert De nman’s Wil l is sufficie ntly specific , in lig ht of the require ments of the fe dera l statute g overningpay

ment of the Ge neration-Skippi ng Transf er ( ‘GST’) tax , to c harg e the GST tax to the residuar

y estate r ather

than to specific bequests (‘ the transf ers’ ) of proper

ty ,” much of his brief04
- 07
- 00 85 1- CV

T h e i s s u e of wh et h er a dev i s ee ma y h av e a v i abl e cl ai m u n der s t at e l aw f or r ei mbu r s eme n t f

or t h e amou n t of 3 t ax es p aid wh ere t he t estato r’ s clear i nten t wa s f o r t he d ev i see t o rec eive t he f ull va l ue o f

t he b eq ue st i s no t b efo re u s.

- 11- is d e vo te d to arguin g the De c e de nt’ s in te nt w ithre g ard to t a x all oc a tio n. At

or a l argume nt o f t

his
a pp e a l, t he pa rt ie s a g re e d, a s d o we, th at sect ion 26 03 (b ) c on tr ols de sp ite the te stator ’s int e nt. 3 Ac c or din g ly , a

rgume nts a

bo ut the De c e de nt’ s in te nt a re mis pla c e d. Th e qu e sti on is w he the r A rt ic le XI Iof the will containe d a spec ific re fer ence to the GST tax as required by section 2603(b) of the I nterna l Revenue Code. I f the De cede nt intended to opt out of the g ener al allocation scheme , he wa s require d to make a spe cific r efe renc e to the GST tax. We m us t f ir st de te rm ine wh a t lawg ov e rn s o ur int e rp re tatio n o f t

he sp e c if ic ity re qu ir e me nts of se c tio n 2 60 3( b) . G e ne ra lly , a de c isi on fr om a fe de ra l court , othe r tha

n the Un ite d St a te s Su

pr e me Court, on a fe dera l matter is not binding on this court and is consider ed mer ely persua sive. Christ us Health Gulf

Coast, Inc. v. Ae tna, Inc
. , 2 3 7 S
. W
. 3 d 3 3 8 , 3 4 3 n . 8 (T ex . 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g Penrod Drilling Corp. v. W

illiams , 868 S.W .2d 294, 296 (Tex. 1993) . Howeve r, in U.S. v. Ray T homas Grave l Co. , 380 S.W .2d 576, 580 (Tex. 1964), the Tex as S upreme Court held i t was “constraine d to follow the fede ral c ourts in the ir interpre tation a nd application of the fe dera l tax statutes.” Ac cording ly , based on the mandate of Ray Thomas Grave l , we must follow any rele vant tax court case s construing the specific ity

require ment of sec tion 2603(b). See id. ; see also In reEstate of Tubbs , 900 P.2d 865, 870 (K an. Ct. Ap p. 19 95 , r e v. de nie d) (d e c lin ingto a pp ly Ka ns a s la w g ov e rn ing a llo c a tio n o f t he GST tax because of

exis tence of sec tion 26 0 3(b) a nd holding a

ny state public policy

conce rning application of f

eder al taxes is preempted by section 2603(b) ). There are few

cases ad dre s s i n g wh et h er p ar t i cu l ar l an gu age co n s t i tu t es a “ s p ec i fi c r ef er ence ” for pur poses of s ection 2603(b). Howeve r, those that have addre ssed the issue support the tria l04
- 07
- 00 85 1- CV

- 12- c ourt ’s jud g me nt, and we fi nd on e of tho se c a se s d ir e c tly

on po int
. See E

state of Monroe v. Comm’r , 104 T.C. 352 (1995), rev’d in part on other grounds , 124 F.3d 699 ( 5th Cir. 1997). I n Monroe , the de c e de nt’ s w ill inc lud e d s pe c if ic “ in- tr us t be qu e sts ,” and dir e c te d that “ a ll f e de ra l e state ta xes, state and City inheritanc e or e state transf er tax es or other death taxes” wer e to be paid f rom the re siduary estate. 104 T.C. at 353, 363. The will also contained a number of spe cific cash beque sts and provided those be quests would ea ch “b ea r its proportionate par t of all death tax es that may be attributable ther eto.” Id. at 354. Afte r a f eder al tax return w as filed, the Commissioner of the I nterna l Revenue de termined ther e wa s a tax deficienc y and alle ged , am o ng other thing s, that the GST ta x ap pli c a

ble to t he “ in- tr us t beques ts,” wh ic h h a d b e e n a llo c a te d to the pa rt ic ula r b e qu e sts
on the t ax return, had been improperly char g ed and a llocated. Id
. at 352. The Commissioner altere d the ta x lia bil ity be c a us e he de te rm ine d, ba se d o n the langua g e of the wi ll, that th e GST ta x wa s to be char g ed to the residuar y , not the specific in-trust bequests. Id . at 363. B y asser ting this position, the Commiss ioner obviously conclude d the will contained a specific ref

ere nce to the G ST tax of section 2603(b)
. On a pp e a l to the ta x co ur

t, t he pr ov isi on a l a dmi nis tr a tor and e xec uto r c la ime d th e wi ll d id not contain a spe cific r efe renc e to the t ax imposed by section 2603(b) sufficie nt to remove it fr om the def ault provision of section 2603(b)
. Id. at 363-64. Af ter re v i ew i n g the languag e of se ction 26 03 (b ) a nd c on sid e ri ngthe ta x all oc a tio n p ro vis ion of the wi ll, the ta x co ur

t he ld: Section 2603(b) r eq u i re s t hat there be a “ specific ref ere nce” to the g e ne ratio n- sk ipp ingtr ans fe r t a x to pr e ve nt a c ha rg e to t he pro pe rt

y constituting t h e t ransfer. The words of the provision are unambig uous and should be acc orded their ordinary an dever y day meaning . [citation om itted] . . . Secti o n 2603(b) r equire s a will or other g o v er n i n g instrument to make spec ific re fer ence to the tax “imposed by

this chapter” , namely , chapte r 13, captioned T ax on04
- 07
- 00 85 1- CV

- 13- Certai n Gene ration-Skipping T ransf ers . . . The re is no evide nce of le g is lativ e purp os e ov e rr idi ngthe pla in m e anin g of “ sp e c if ic ref ere nce” , and, thus, we hold that an expli cit ref ere nce to g ener ationskipping tra

nsfer taxes is required by

section 2603(b) . [ci t at i on omitted] Id . at 363-65. The court c onsidered a nd reje cted the Com m i s sioner’s a rg ument that the testator’ s

“ fa ilure sp e c if

ic a lly to refer to g e ne ra

tio n- sk ipp ingtr ans fe r t a xes i s n ot c on tr oll ing , b e c a us e , in matters of w ill construction, the testator’s intent contr ols.” Id
. at 364. The c ourt also re jected the Commi ssioner’s a

rg ument that the testator’ s contrastingtreatment of the in-tru s t b eq u est s and
nu me ro us c a s h b e qu e s t s e s t a b l i s h e d t h e t e s t a t o r ’ s i n t e n tt h a tG S T t a xe s p e rt a i n i n g t o t h e i n - t r us t bequests be char g ed to t he re siduary
. Id
. The court likewise re jected his a

rg ument that a re fer ence to “death tax es” c ould be interpret ed as including GST tax es. Id . The tax court re verse d the Co mm is s io n e r ’ s d e c is io n , c o n c lu d in g th e w il l d id n o t c o n ta in a s p e c if ic r e f e r e n c e to th e G ST tax, and there fore the taxes on the in-trust bequests wer e char g eable to the those beque sts. Id . at 365. Thus s c on te nd s Monroe is in a p p li c a b le b e c a u s e th e Wi ll c o n ta in s th e p h r a s e “ tr an s f e r tax” and the Monroe c ourt

did no t c on str

ue th e ref e re nc e to “ tr ans fe r t a x.” Ra the r, the c ourt me re ly d e te r mi n e d w h e th e r th e p h r a s e “ d eath taxe s ” w a s a s u f f ic ie n tl y s p e c if ic r e f e r e n c e to th e G ST tax. We d is a g r e e . T h e tax c o u rt i n Monroe was a sked to deter mine if the in-trust beque sts were to be
c ha rg e d w iththe tr ans fe r t a xes. Th e a pp lic a ble pr ov isi on of

the wi ll w ithre g ard

to t he se be qu e sts
re fe rr e d n ot s imp ly to de a th ta xes, bu t to “ a ll fe de ra l e state ta xes, state and City inh e ri tanc e or

e state transfe r taxes or other de ath taxes.” Id . at 353 . I n d e te rm ini ngthi s p ro vis ion wa s n ot s uf

fi c ie ntl y sp e c if ic , th e ta x co ur

t e xpre ssl y

re je c te d a c la im b y the Com mis sio ne r that th e ph ra se “ de a th t a xes” could be construed as a

ref ere nce to the G ST tax
. Id
. at 364. This r ejec tion wa s not, however , the ultimate basis of the cour t’s decision. R ather , the court’s decision was based on the a bsence of an04
- 07
- 00 85 1- CV

- 14- e xplic it r e fe re nc e to the GST ta x in the ta x a llo c a tio n pr ov isi on of the wi ll a pp lic a ble to t he in- tr us t bequests. Id. at 364-65. Pursuant to Monroe , a re fe re nc e to “ tr ans fe r” ta xes o r o the r t a xes t hat ma y ari se a t th e de a th of t he testator is not a “specific refe renc e” sufficient to satisfy the m andate s of sec tion 2603(b). A will or other instrument must specific ally ref er to the G ST tax
. Id. J ust as in Monroe , th e Will i n this case made ref

ere nce to tra

nsfer , estate, a

nd death taxes. And, just as in Monroe , th e Will f a ils to make a spe cific r efe renc e to the GST tax. Th a t a me re re fe re nc e to “ tr ans fe r” ta xes is in su ff ic ie nt t o c omp ly

wi th s e c tio n 2 60 3( b) is further supported by

the fa ct that, by

definition, all tax es due upon a testator’s de ath ar e tra

nsfer taxes. See 26 U. S.C. § 2 00 1( a ) ( statin g that “ [a] tax is he re by imp os e d o n the tr ans fe r o f t he ta xab le
e state of e ve ry de c e de nt wh o is a c iti zen or re sid e nt o f t he Un ite d St a te s) ; T EX A S T AX C ODE ANN . § 211.051(a) (Ve rnon 2008) ( stating that “[a] t ax equal to the amount of t he federa l cre dit is i mposed
on the tr ans fe r at de a th o f t

he pr op e rt

y of e ve ry re sid e nt. ” ). With ou t a mor e sp e c if ic re fe re nc e , u se of the wo rd “ tr ans fe r” c ou ld r e fe r t o a ll t a xes p ay a ble up on pr op e rt

y that is tra

ns fe rr e d at th e de a th of the testator
. Citi ng Estate of Green v . Comm’r , 8 6 T .C. M. (C CH ) 7 58 , 20 03 WL23 01 88 41 (2 00 3) , T hu ss argues no specific lang uag e is nece ssary to opt out of the g ener al appor tionment scheme. In Gree n , the te stator ’s wi ll d ir e c te d:

I direc t my Personal R epre sentative to pay , out of my estate, any tax im pos e d unde r Cha pt e r 13 of t he Int e r nal F e de r al R e ve nue Co de on pr o perty t ransferred in a “direct skip,” as def ined in Section 2612(c) of the Code; su ch tax shall not be deduc ted from or reduc e the g ift, bequest or de vise which c onstitut es a “ direc t skip.”04
- 07
- 00 85 1- CV

- 15- Id. at *1 (e mphasis added)
. The executor argued the GST tax had to be a llocated to the tra nsfer red proper ty b ec au s e the will was not suff iciently specific under se ction 2603(b). Id . at *3. The executor conte nded that to a void the defa

ult pr ovision of section 2603(b), the will ha d to instruc t the executor not to “cha

rg e” the GST tax to the transf err ed prope rty
. Id . at *5. The c ourt held it was not
ne c e ssa ry fo r t he wi ll t o u se the wo rd “ c ha rg e ” be c a us e se c tio n 2 60 3( b) do e s n ot r e qu ir e any sp e c if ic langua g e to opt ou t of the g e ne ra l a pp or tio nme nt s c he me and

it w a s “ su ff

ic ie nt t hat de c e de nt’ s w ill . . . made a

specific ref

ere nce to the G ST tax .” Id
. (c i t i n g Monroe , 104 T.C. at 363-65). Whil e the court essentially stated no “ma g ic languag e” w as re quired, it neve rtheless he ld that a spec ific re fer ence to the GST tax was require d. Id. The will in Gree n satisfied this require ment by specific ally

ref err ing to Chapte r 13 of the I nterna l Re venue Code and “pr operty transfe rre d in a ‘direc t skip.’” Id. Acc ording ly , Gree n p ro vides support for the trial court’ s judgme nt rather than for Thuss’s position. S ee also Estate of Me yer , 702 N.E.2d 1078, 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (holding tru s t wa s require d to pay GST tax beca

use trust instrument did not rebut section 2603(b) pr e su mpt ion ); Tubbs , 9 00 P.2 d at 87 1 ( us ing d efi nit ion a l ana ly sis to c on c lud e that “ sp e c if ic ref ere nce” require s that GST tax “must be explicitl y mentioned.”)
. T h e W i l l d o e s n o tc o n t a i nt h e e x p l i c i tr e f e r e n c e m an d a t e d

b y Monroe , no r d oe s it approximate the ref

ere nce f ound sufficie nt in G r e en . Becaus e it d oe s n ot c on ta in a “ sp e c if ic ref ere nce” to the GST tax , the def ault provision of section 2603(b) applies and the tax mus t be allocate d and cha

rg ed to the Ranc h. C ONCL US I ON We hold Denman has no a ppellate standingbeca

use neither

he n o r t h e estate has be en injuriously

aff ecte d by the probate cour

t’s judgme nt. See Torrington , 46 S
. W
. 3 d at 843. Texas04
- 07
- 00 85 1- CV

- 16- c ourt s h a ve no t r e c og nize d a n e xec uto r’ s r ig ht t o a

pp e a l pr ob a te ru lin g s si mpl y to e ns ur e pr op e r w ill construction. Additionally , Denman is not on notice of any additional tax l iability

that might subjec t him to li ability

under se ction 371 3 (b ). Acc ording ly , we g rant the motion to dismis s for wa nt of jurisdiction and dismiss Denman’ s appea l. Se c tio n 2 60 3( b) of

the I nte rn a l Re ve nu e Cod e re qu ir e s a ve ry sp e c if ic re fe re nc e to t

he GST tax
. L an gu age bey ond the mere use of the w ord “tra nsfer ” is requir ed to def

eat the de fault tax allocation provision of sec tion 2603(b). See G reen , 8 6 T .C. M. 75 8, a t * 5 ; Monroe , 104 T.C. at 364- 65. The testator must, in some manner , unambig uously ref er to the G ST tax . Ba sed on Monroe and Gree n , w e ho ld t

he De c e de nt’ s w ill do e s n ot c on ta in a sp e c if ic , un a mbi g uo us re fe re nc e to t he GST tax. W e ther efor e af

firm the trial c ourt’s judg ment.

Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice