Estate of Hamelsky v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Decedent's will provided that his executor could distribute assets in kind at their values as finally determined for Federal estate tax purposes in satisfaction of the marital bequest. Held, in accordance with Rev. Proc. 64-19, sec. 2.02, the marital deduction does not fail under the terminable interest provisions of sec. 2056(b)(1), I.R.C. 1954.
1Opinion of the Court
Estate of Abraham Hamelsky, Deceased, Samuel Hamelsky, Executor, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Estate of Hamelsky v. Commissioner
Docket No. 7511-70
United States Tax Court
58 T.C. 741; 1972 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 78;
August 7, 1972, Filed
Decision will be entered under Rule 50.
Decedent's will provided that his executor could distribute assets in kind at their values as finally determined for Federal estate tax purposes in satisfaction of the marital bequest. Held, in accordance with Rev. Proc. 64-19, sec. 2.02, the marital deduction does not fail under the terminable…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Commissioner v. Estate of BoschSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Russell v. Princeton Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1967
- Peoples Trust Company of Bergen County, of the Estate of Dora Plume, Deceased v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1971
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate of Herman J. Bosch, Deceased, Irving Trust Company, Executor,respondentCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1966
- Bosch v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1964
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.