Estate of Murphy v. Comm'r
United States Tax Court
The decedent was the donee of a special power of appointment over certain property. At her death, she exercised this power by creating in her husband a second power of appointment with respect to the same property. Held: Under Wisconsin's rule against perpetuities, the perpetuities period for an interest appointed under a special power is computed from the date of the power's creation rather than from its exercise.
Read the full summary
The decedent was the donee of a special power of appointment over certain property. At her death, she exercised this power by creating in her husband a second power of appointment with respect to the same property. Held: Under Wisconsin's rule against perpetuities, the perpetuities period for an interest appointed under a special power is computed from the date of the power's creation rather than from its exercise. Thus, under these facts, sec. 2041(a)(3), I.R.C. 1954, does not apply to the decedent's exercise of her special power.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Fay, Judge:
Respondent determined a deficiency of $39,254.45 in the Federal estate tax of the Estate of Mary Margaret Murphy. The issue presented is whether the value of certain property over which the decedent possessed a power of appointment is includable in her gross estate under section 2041(a)(3).1
All of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
Petitioner John Falk Murphy (hereinafter referred to as petitioner or John) is the duly appointed personal representative of the Estate of Mary Margaret Murphy. At the time of filing his petition herein, petitioner resided in Madison,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Harris v. BurgerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1950
3Cited by1 opinion
- Estate of Murphy v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 1979