Court Opinion

ID: 9724910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:19:57.355349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:07.771515
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, specially concurring: The burden on the residue rule is well established in Illinois’s common law pertaining to testamentary disposition. I thus concur in the majority’s opinion. I write separately, however, to express my concern regarding the propriety of the rule. The third paragraph of Robert’s will shows that he intended Francis and James to emerge from the disposition of his property with gifts of equal value. The record reveals the following dollar figures: aggregate value of James’ specific bequests — $429,000; aggregate value of Francis’ specific bequests — $145,500; value of the residuary estate— $127,000. The third paragraph’s equalization language entitled Francis to the entire residuary estate, giving him property with an aggregate value of $272,500. The result was a disparity of $156,500 between the value of Francis’ and James’ gifts under the will. That disparity was inherent given the size of the residuary estate and the circumstances of property value at the time of the disposition. Equitable apportionment of the estate tax burden would have maintained this posture between Francis and James. However, the burden on the residue rule increased the disparity between them by the value of the residuary estate ($127,000); all of which was applied to the tax bill before James shouldered any of the burden. Thus, the rule defeated Robert’s expressed intention to the tune of $127,000. I realize that Robert could have drafted his way around the rule. However, I question the soundness of using the rule as a default standard. I believe the default standard should engender equality and that a drafted exception should be required for unequal imposition of the tax burden. Illinois’s common law currently operates backwards and causes the type of strife we now see between Francis and James. This court has previously stated: “In many other states, provision is made by statute for apportionment of estate taxes in the absence of specific testamentary direction to the contrary. [Citation.] A statute on the subject could deal at one time with the many problems involved. [Citation.] The legislature could also specify an effective date for a change with such widespread effects as an apportionment statute might have on wills now in existence. *** If a change is to be made in what we regard as a well established rule in this State on allocation of the burden of estate taxes, we believe it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to do so.” In re Estate of Phillips, 1 Ill. App. 3d 813, 815-16 (1971). For the reasons stated above, I encourage the legislature to enact a statute implementing equitable apportionment as the default standard for imposition of testamentary estate taxes.