Document: 376 U.S. 503 84 S.Ct. 869 11 L.Ed.2d 871 L. R. JACKSON et al., Petitioners,v.UNITED STATES. No. 361. Argued March 4, 1964. Decided 23, Paul Burks, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners. John B. Jones, Jr., Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Since 1948 § 812(e)(1)(A) Internal Revenue Code 1939 has allowed a 'marital deduction' from decedent's gross taxable estate value interests in property passing decedent to his surviving spouse.1 Subsection (B) adds qualification, however, that defined therein as 'terminable' shall not qualify an interest which marital deduction applies.2 The question raised by this case is whether allowance provided California law support widow during settlement her husband's terminable interest. 2 Petitioners are widow-executrix and testamentary trustee under will George Richards who died resident on May 27, 1951. Acting Probate California, state court, June 30, 1952, Mrs. sum $3,000 per month corpus maintenance, beginning 1951, continuing period 24 months date. Under terms order, $42,000 had accrued 14 since death. This amount, plus additional remainder two-year period, making total $72,000, was fact paid widow's allowance. 3 On federal tax return filed behalf estate, full $72,000 claimed 812(e) 1939. disallowed, claim refund after payment deficiency, present suit then brought District Court granted summary judgment United States, holding, authority Cunha's Estate v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 279 F.2d 292, deductible provision Code. Appeals affirmed, 317 821, we here because asserted conflict between decision below Fifth Circuit States First National Bank & Trust Co. Augusta, 5 297 312. 375 894, 172, 123. For reasons given below, affirm Appeals. 4 In enacting Act 1948, 62 Stat. 110, with its deduction, Congress left undisturbed 812(b)(5) Code, expense administration, amounts 'reasonably required actually expended those dependent upon decedent.' 26 U.S.C. (1946 ed.) 812(b)(5). As legislative history shows, payments were be treated part 812(e)(1).3 1950, 64 906, repealed because, among other reasons, believed section resulted discriminations favor having liberal family allowances.4 Thereafter allowances 'heretofore 812(b) allowable subject conditions limitations 812(e).' S.Rep. 2375, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., p. 130, U.S.Congressional Service, 3191. 'conditions limitations' several but need concern ourselves only one aspect 812(e)(1)(B), disallows spouse. It conceded right involved dec dent within meaning 812(e)(3), it rule 812(e)(1)(B) applicable, set forth (i) (ii) satisfied codicils thereto. issue, therefore, would 'terminate or fail' 'lapse time, occurrence event contingency, failure contingency occur.' 6 We accept Appeals' description nature characteristics law. State, vested nothing accrues before order granting it. lost when whom asked status depends. If dies remarries prior securing allowance, does survive such death remarriage. amount unpaid at date payable future abates remarriage subsequent likewise payments. 825. 7 light these did have indefeasible moment either defeat been entered day death, any time two years thereafter terminate portion allocable period. Richards' termination 'upon contingency.' That later not, our opinion, change defeasible 8 ask us judge terminability represented Court's rather than court's they argue, unconditionally entitled she could deprived true some courts followed path,5 difficult approach allow facts case, if end none all immediately Moreover, judging deductibility ignores Senate Committee's admonition considering purposes 'the situation viewed death.' S.Rep.No. 1013, Part 2, 80th 10. prefer course both Ninth Estate, supra, Eighth Quivey, 292 252. Both held testator correct point purpose deciding 812(e)(1). accord uniformly regard qualification must determined death.6 Our conclusion confirmed 812(e)(1)(D),7 saves operation their may (but do fact) husband excess six months. premise normally judged testator's condition imposed satisfied; hence necessity provide exception months' survivorship will.8 A gift conditioned eight survivorship, six, nondeductible also disqualify statutory where remain unmarried least become indefeasibly all. 10 contend, sole terminable-interest provisions assure deducted deceased spouse escape taxation survivor. argument leads now clear unless consumed away life, entire taxed should included husband's. But already seen, there no deducting nonterminable therefore transferred. examples cited make determinative factor taxability statute.9 view advanced petitioners cash fall outside 812(e)(1) (B); different occasions refused give approval House-passed amendments 1954 made inapplicable specified periods time.10 mindful general goal achieve uniformity impact community laws without them.11 device chose unifo mity knowingly hedged limitations, including rule. These imperfect devices desired end,12 means chose. To extent thought desirable modify rigors rule, exceptions written into Courts hesitate still another straying so far language statute. achievement great degree careful drafting wills; fear today prevent utilization proper widows pendency proceeding. 12 Affirmed. 13 DOUGLAS dissents. is: 'An equal passes passed spouse, determining estate.' (1952 812(e)(1)(A). provides pertinent part: 'Where, lapse occur, fail, respect interest— '(i) (for less adequate consideration money money's worth) person (or spouse); '(ii) reason heirs assigns) possess enjoy spouse.' (1)(B). similar counterpart. See (1958 2056(a) (b). 3, Congressional Service 1163. states: 'In practice (the deduction) discriminated estates located authorize dependents, probably tended delay estates.' 57. 312 (C.A.5th Cir.); Gale 35 T.C. 215; Rudnick 36 1021. Bookwalter Lamar, 323 664 (C.A.8th U ited Mappes, 318 508 (C.A.10th Commissioner Ellis' 252 109 (C.A.3d Starrett 223 163 (C.A.1st Sbicca 96. 'For subparagraph considered fail if— cause occurs exceeding result common disaster resulting event; 812(e)(1)(D). Report accompanying House bill eventually became states 'Subparagraph (D) section. allowing certain cases common-disaster clause will.' 15. Id., 10, 11, 1622, 83d 125; H.R. 2573, 86th 1st Sess.; H.R.Rep. 818, Sess. Stapf, 118, 248, 195. Surrey, Federal Taxation Family—The 61 Harv.L.Rev. 1097, 1156—1157; Anderson, Marital Deduction Equalization Gift Taxes Between Common Law Community Property 54 Mich.L.Rev. 1087, 1109.

Category: 11