Keeter v. United States
461 F.2d 714 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An insurance settlement option that directs proceeds to "the executors or administrators" of the beneficiary creates a general power of appointment exercisable by the decedent's will, thereby making the proceeds includable in the decedent's gross estate for federal estate tax purposes.
Facts:
- In 1919, Daniel A. Shaw purchased a $100,000 life insurance policy on his own life.
- In 1926, Daniel A. Shaw, the insured, elected a settlement option for this policy.
- The settlement option provided that the insurance proceeds would be held under four identical supplementary contracts, with one $25,000 contract issued to his wife, Bessie Love Shaw.
- Under this contract, Bessie Love Shaw was to receive interest on her share of the proceeds for her life.
- The settlement option further stipulated that the principal and accrued interest from the proceeds were to be paid to "the executors or administrators" of Bessie Love Shaw at her death.
- Bessie Love Shaw, domiciled in Florida, died in 1964, leaving a will.
- Her will included a residuary clause stating, "All the rest, residue and remainder of my property...and any property over which I may hold the power of appointment or distribution, I give, devise, and bequeath in three equal portions for [her daughters]."
Procedural Posture:
- The executor of Bessie Love Shaw's estate did not include the $25,000 insurance proceeds in her gross estate when filing the estate tax return.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed a deficiency against the estate.
- The executor paid the assessed deficiency.
- The executor then brought a suit for a refund in the United States District Court, which found in favor of the executor (taxpayer) and granted the refund (323 F.Supp. 1093).
- The government appealed the district court's decision.
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 an insurance settlement option, elected by the insured, which provides that the principal and interest of life insurance proceeds be paid to "the executors or administrators" of a beneficiary upon her death, constitute a general power of appointment exercisable by the beneficiary's will, thus making the proceeds includable in her gross estate for federal estate tax purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Goldberg, Circuit Judge
Yes, an insurance settlement option that directs proceeds to "the executors or administrators" of a beneficiary constitutes a general power of appointment for estate tax purposes. The court reasoned that federal tax law defines what interests are taxed, while state law creates those interests. A general power of appointment includes a power exercisable in favor of the decedent, his estate, his creditors, or the creditors of his estate (26 U.S.C.A. § 2041(b)(1)). By directing the proceeds to "executors or administrators," the insured effectively granted the decedent the unrestricted power to dispose of the funds through her will, as executors are legally bound to follow the will's instructions under state law (e.g., Florida law in this case). The making of a will acts as a conduit for the decedent's direction of the funds, not an independent source of power. The critical factor is the unrestricted power to direct the proceeds, regardless of whether that power is exercised immediately, by will, or through an executor. The court explicitly disagreed with the Seventh Circuit's holding in Second National Bank of Danville, Ill. v. Dallman, finding no substantive difference between directly granting power to dispose of property and placing it in a position where the donee can dispose of it via an existing power like a will. The fact that the insured could have altered the policy before his death, or that the power was exercisable only at the decedent's death, does not negate the existence of the general power of appointment. The power was created before 1942 and exercised by her will, thus satisfying the requirements for inclusion in the gross estate.
Concurring - John R. Brown, Chief Judge
Chief Judge Brown fully concurred with the majority's decision and opinion. He added a note to emphasize that, based on data from the IRS's RIRA computer system, this particular issue under Section 2041 of the tax code was not a widespread problem, but rather specific to Mrs. Shaw's case, suggesting it was not a test case for broader tax policy implications.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarified the interpretation of a "general power of appointment" under federal estate tax law, particularly in arrangements involving insurance settlement options. By emphasizing the "substance over form" doctrine, the court established that a beneficiary's ability to direct insurance proceeds through their will, even when those proceeds are formally payable to their estate, grants them sufficient control for the funds to be included in their gross estate. This ruling rejected a narrower construction that might have allowed such arrangements to escape taxation, ensuring that assets over which a decedent wields effective testamentary control are subject to estate taxes, regardless of the precise legal mechanism employed. This decision reinforces the federal government's ability to tax beneficial ownership and control of assets.
