Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

331 N.W.2d 127

Sheets v. Conklin

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided March 16, 1983

Supreme Court of Iowa · decided 1983-03-16

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently October 1991

3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“All federal and state estate taxes (as distinguished from state inheritance taxes) owing by the estate of a decedent shall be paid from the property 'of the estate, unless the will of the decedent, or other trust instrument, provides expressly to the contrary.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Barlow v. Brubaker

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 2002

Relies on Riggs v. Del Drago

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-03-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SCHULTZ, Justice

¶1(dissenting).

¶2I dissent.

¶3In general, federal estate taxes are required to be paid by the executor I.R.C. § 2002. The federal government is, with two exceptions, not concerned with where the burden of the tax falls. See I.R.C. §§ 2006-07 (apportions tax on beneficiary of life insurance proceeds and recipient of property by virtue of decedent’s power of appointment). The applicable state laws as to the devolution of property at death should govern the distribution of the remainder and the ultimate impact of the federal estate tax. Riggs v. Del Drago, 317 U.S. 95, 63 S.Ct. 109, 87 L.Ed. 106 (1942). Our state law provides that the federal estate tax “shall be paid from the property of the estate, unless the will of the decedent ... provides expressly to the contrary.” Iowa Code § 633.449 (1981).

¶4I find no language in the decedent’s will that “expressly” states the tax is not to be paid by the estate. Although the will does specify that the tax shall be paid solely from the nonmarital bequests and devises, it does not state that nonprobate property is to be used to satisfy the tax. The majority does make this finding, yet it does so by discerning decedent’s implied intent and treating it as expressly provided. As the majority recognizes, the word express is usually contrasted with the word implied. Black’s Law Dictionary 521 (rev. 5th ed. 1979). Using legerdemain to avoid this distinction in an effort to cure the effects of inadequate draftsmanship results in a surprising and unnecessary interpretation of section 633.449.

¶5I cannot agree with this interpretation and would reverse.

/331/nw2d/127 · .json · Public domain