Court Opinion

ID: 9451641
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:21:16.069975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:50.067102
License: Public Domain

CASTLE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
The statutory language here involved (26 U.S.C.A. § 2056(b) (5)) “* * * *822entitled for life to all the income from the entire interest, or all the income from a specific portion thereof, * * * ” is without ambiguity. And, to qualify pursuant to this exception to the terminable-interest rule the quality of the interest passing to the surviving spouse must meet the standard Congress saw fit to impose. Something judicially rationalized as approximately equivalent is not enough. I believe it self-evident that the right to $200 a month for life is neither a right for life to all the income from the entire interest nor to all the income from a specific portion of the interest. Accordingly, I would reverse.