estate of Wadewitz v. Commissioner
339 F.2d 980 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under § 2039 of the Internal Revenue Code, a decedent's gross estate includes the value of survivor benefits if, at the time of death, the decedent possessed an enforceable right to receive future payments, even if that right was contingent upon an act within the decedent's sole control (such as retirement) and subject to forfeiture based on the decedent's own subsequent actions.
Facts:
- On July 1, 1946, Edward H. Wadewitz, president of Western Printing and Lithographing Company, entered into a retirement contract with the company.
- The contract provided for annual payments to Wadewitz for fifteen years, beginning upon his retirement or termination of employment.
- The continuation of payments post-retirement was conditional on Wadewitz refraining from engaging in acts competitive with the company.
- The contract stipulated that if Wadewitz died before the fifteen-year payment period ended, the remaining payments would be made to his designated beneficiaries, his wife and daughter.
- Wadewitz died in January 1955 while still employed as president of Western.
- Because he never retired, Wadewitz never received any payments under the contract.
- Following his death, Wadewitz's wife and daughter began receiving the contractual payments as beneficiaries.
Procedural Posture:
- The executors of Edward H. Wadewitz's estate included the commuted value of the retirement contract in the federal estate tax return.
- The executors subsequently filed a claim for a refund of the estate tax paid on this amount.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue denied the refund claim.
- The executors, as petitioners, challenged the Commissioner's denial in the United States Tax Court.
- The Tax Court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, holding the value was includable in the gross estate.
- The executors then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the commuted value of a retirement contract constitute part of a decedent's gross estate under § 2039 of the Internal Revenue Code when the decedent's right to receive payments was contingent upon his retirement and subject to forfeiture for competitive activity, and the decedent died before retiring?
Opinions:
Majority - Swygert, J.
Yes, the commuted value of the retirement contract is includable in the decedent's gross estate. A decedent 'possessed the right to receive' payments under § 2039 even if that right was contingent, so long as the contingency was within the decedent's exclusive control. Here, Wadewitz had an enforceable right to future payments because he could have retired at any time, an act entirely of his own volition, which would have triggered the company's non-discretionary obligation to pay. The conditions that could stop payments (e.g., competing with the company) were also within his control, so the right was not forfeitable in a way that would defeat inclusion under the statute. Furthermore, because Wadewitz held this right from 1946 until his death in 1955—a period of time that did not end before his death—he possessed the right for one of the statutorily required periods.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of § 2039 of the Internal Revenue Code, establishing that a contingent right to future payments is sufficient for inclusion in a gross estate, provided the contingency is within the decedent's sole control. It prevents taxpayers from avoiding estate tax by structuring deferred compensation plans where the employee's right to payments is conditional upon their own future actions, such as retirement. The ruling solidifies the principle that an enforceable but unexercised right is a sufficient property interest for estate tax purposes, thereby broadening the tax base to include the value of survivor benefits tied to such arrangements.
