Cluster 534634

Cf. Estate of Leder v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 893 F.2d 237, 241 (10th Cir. 1989) (interpreting sections of the tax code regarding incidents of ownership of an insurance policy, and concluding that “payment of the policy premiums by the decedent’s wholly owned corporation does not render the policy proceeds includable in decedent’s gross estate, because payment of premiums is not an incident of ownership”).

To the extent the Appellees may assert that by not paying premiums Lee effectively had a right to cancel the Policies, which was an "incident of ownership,” the federal cases have uniformly held that the “payment of premiums is not an incident of ownership under [26 U.S.C. § ] 2042.” Estate of Leder v. C.I.R., 893 F.2d 237, 242 (10th Cir. 1989); see also Estate of Headrick v. C.I.R., 918 F.2d 1263, 1268 (6th Cir. 1990); First Nat’l Bank of Oregon v. United States, 488 F.2d 5…

The court noted that “[sjection 2035(d)(2) specifically cross references section 2042,” and the court concluded that the only inference to be drawn “from this express cross reference is that Congress, in enacting subsection (d), meant to construe sections 2035(d)(2) and 2042 in pari materia. ” Leder, 893 F.2d at 241 (emphasis in original).

Leder v. Commissioner, 893 F.2d 237, 240 (10th Cir.1989).

See Estate of Leder v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 893 F.2d 237, 241 (10th Cir. 1989).

See discussion of the interrelationship of these provisions in Estate of Leder v. Commissioner , 89 T.C. 235 , 238-242 (1987) , affd. 893 F.2d 237 (10th Cir. 1989) . *516 The legislative history of the enactment of section 2035(d) by section 424 of ERTA 81, 95 Stat. 317 , indicates that the expected consequences of section 2035(d)(1) are that (1) "the post-gift appreciation will not be subject to transfer taxes" and (2) "such property will not be considered to pass from the …

See Estate of Leder v. Commissioner , 893 F.2d 237 , 239 (10th Cir. 1989) , affg. 89 T.C. 235 (1987) .

See In re Ruti-Sweetwater, Inc., 836 F.2d 1263 , 1266 (10th Cir.1988).” Estate of Leder v. Comm’r, 893 F.2d 237, 240 (10th Cir.1989).

See In re Ruti-Sweetwater, Inc., 836 F.2d 1263 , 1266 (10th Cir.1988)." Estate of Leder v. Comm'r, 893 F.2d 237, 240 (10th Cir.1989).

In order to 24 avoid the inclusion of the Policies' proceeds in his gross estate, Lee had to ensure he did not possess "at his death any of the incidents of ownership, exercisable either alone or in conjunction with any other person," of the Policies. 26 U.S.C. § 2042 ; see also Estate of Lede~ v. C.I.R., 893 F.2d 237, 242-43 (10th Cir. 1989) (concluding an insured who "never held any ownership, economic, or other contractual rights in the policy" did not have any "incidents…

In order to avoid the inclusion of the Policies’ proceeds in his gross estate, Lee had to ensure that he did not possess “at his death any of the incidents of ownership, exercisable either alone or in conjunction with any other person,” of 12 Indeed, one wonders how Lee could assert a breach-of-contract claim in light of his assignment of the Policies to the Trustee. 18 the Policies. 26 U.S.C. § 2042 ; see also Estate of Leder v. C.I.R., 893 F.2d 237, 242-43 (10th Cir. 1989)…

In these situations the probability that acts relating to the same subject matter were based on the same policy is very high. 2B SUTHERLAND STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 51:3 (6th ed. 2000) (emphases added) (footnotes omitted); see, e.g., Estate of Headrick v. Comm'n, 918 F.2d 1263, 1266 (6th Cir.1990) (tax statutes "`specifically cross referenc[ing]'" each other construed in pari materia ) (quoting Estate of Leder v. Comm'n, 893 F.2d 237, 241 (10th Cir.1989)); United States v. R…