Legal Opinion · Dissent

Holzbach v. United Virginia Bank

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided December 1, 1975No. Record 750267Published

1Dissent

Harrison and Cochran, JJ.,

dissenting.

We dissent. It can be safely said that the primary motive of the great majority who avail themselves of the marital deduction is to qualify their estates for the tax deductions and benefits that flow therefrom. However, to reap these benefits, a wife for whom a marital trust is created, must be given a general power of appointment.

The Treasury regulation, which permits a donor to require that a power of appointment must be exercised by specific reference to the power, is not designed to provide the donor with an escape valve, or a technical tool, to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hood v. HadenSupreme Court of Virginia · 1886
  2. Walke & Wife v. MooreSupreme Court of Virginia · 1898
  3. Gaskins v. FinksSupreme Court of Virginia · 1894

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API