Allen v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Under Maryland law, the donee of a testamentary power of appointment could not appoint to herself, her creditors, or her estate. Held, the power of appointment does not qualify for the marital deduction under section 812 (e) (1) (F), I. R. C. 1939.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Train, Judge:
Respondent determined a deficiency of $23,881.21 in the estate taxes of William C. Allen, deceased. Petitioners agreed to some increases in the valuation of stocks and bonds and disagreed to other increases, and disagreed to the disallowance of a marital deduction claimed on the return under section 812 (e) (1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. The valuation dispute has since been resolved. The only question remaining is whether deceased’s will created an “interest” in M. Adelaide Allen, deceased’s widow, allowable as a marital deduction under section 812 (e) (1) of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Morgan v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Estate of Rogers v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Lamkin v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1949
- Robertson v. CooperCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1931
- Connor v. O'HaraCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1947
3Cited by13 opinions
- Estate of Mervin G. Pierpont, Deceased, Union Trust Company of Maryland and Ernest L. Poyner, Executors v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1964
- May v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1959
- Comer v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1959
- Frank v. FrankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1969
- Estate of Posner v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2004
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.