[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 241 (Wednesday, December 16, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69248-69251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-33125]



[[Page 69248]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 20

[REG-114663-97]
RIN 1545-AV45


Marital Deduction; Valuation of Interest Passing to Surviving 
Spouse

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document contains proposed regulations relating to the 
effect of certain administration expenses on the valuation of property 
which qualifies for the estate tax marital or charitable deduction. The 
proposed regulations define estate transmission expenses and estate 
management expenses and provide that estate transmission expenses, but 
not estate management expenses, reduce the value of property for 
marital and charitable deduction purposes. This document also provides 
notice of a public hearing on these proposed regulations.

DATES: Written comments must be received by February 16, 1999. Outlines 
of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for April 21, 
1999, at 10 a.m., must be received by March 31, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to CC:DOM:CORP:R (REG-114663-97), room 
5226, Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station, 
Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through 
Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. to: CC:DOM:CORP:R (REG-
114663-97), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Alternatively, taxpayers may submit 
comments electronically via the Internet by selecting the ``Tax Regs'' 
option on the IRS Home Page, or by submitting comments directly to the 
IRS Internet site at http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/tax__regs/
comments.html. The public hearing will be held in Room 2615, Internal 
Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the proposed regulations, 
Deborah Ryan (202) 622-3090; concerning submissions of comments, the 
hearing, and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the 
hearing, LaNita Van Dyke (202) 622-7190 (not toll-free numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 18, 1997, the Supreme Court of the United States issued 
its decision in Commissioner v. Estate of Hubert, 520 U.S. 93 (1997) 
(1997-32 I.R.B. 8), in which it considered the proper interpretation of 
Sec. 20.2056(b)-4(a) of the Estate Tax Regulations. On November 24, 
1997, the IRS issued Notice 97-63 (1997-47 I.R.B. 6), requesting 
comments on alternatives for amending Sec. 20.2056(b)-4(a) in light of 
the Supreme Court's Estate of Hubert decision. Section 2056(b)(4) 
provides that, in determining the value of an interest in property 
which passes from the decedent to the surviving spouse for purposes of 
the marital deduction, account must be taken of any encumbrance on the 
property or any obligation imposed on the surviving spouse by the 
decedent with respect to the property. Section 20.2056(b)-4(a) of the 
Estate Tax Regulations amplifies this rule by providing that account 
must be taken of the effect of any material limitations on the 
surviving spouse's right to the income from the property. The 
regulation provides, for example, that there may be a material 
limitation on the surviving spouse's right to the income from marital 
trust property where the income is used to pay administration expenses 
during the period between the date of the decedent's death and the date 
of distribution of the assets to the trustee.
    The facts in Estate of Hubert are similar to a common fact pattern 
wherein the decedent's will provides for a residuary bequest to a 
marital trust which qualifies for the marital deduction and also 
provides that estate administration expenses are to be paid from the 
residuary estate. Further, the will (or state law) permits the executor 
to use the income generated by the residuary estate (otherwise payable 
to the marital trust) to pay administration expenses, and the executor 
does so. The issue before the Supreme Court in Estate of Hubert was 
whether the executor's use of the income to pay estate administration 
expenses was a material limitation on the surviving spouse's right to 
the income which would reduce the marital deduction under 
Sec. 20.2056(b)-4(a).
    The issue in Estate of Hubert also involved the estate tax 
charitable deduction, and the proposed regulations relate to the 
valuation of property for both marital and charitable deduction 
purposes. However, for simplicity and clarity, this discussion focuses 
on the provisions of the estate tax marital deduction.
    In Estate of Hubert, the Commissioner argued that the payment of 
administration expenses from income is, per se, a material limitation 
on the surviving spouse's right to income for purposes of 
Sec. 20.2056(b)-4(a), and, therefore, the value of the marital bequest 
should be reduced dollar for dollar by the amount of income used to pay 
administration expenses. The Court agreed that the value of the marital 
bequest should be reduced if the use of income to pay administration 
expenses is a material limitation on the spouse's right to income. The 
Court found, however, that the regulation does not define material 
limitation and that the Commissioner had not argued that the use of 
income in this case was a material limitation. Thus, the Court held for 
the taxpayer.
    In Notice 97-63 (November 24, 1997), the IRS requested comments on 
possible approaches for proposed regulations in light of the Estate of 
Hubert decision. Notice 97-63 suggested three alternative approaches 
for determining when the use of income to pay administration expenses 
constitutes a material limitation on the surviving spouse's right to 
income. One approach distinguished between administration expenses that 
are properly charged to principal and those that are properly charged 
to income and provided that there is a material limitation on the 
surviving spouse's right to income if income is used to pay an estate 
administration expense that is properly charged to principal. A second 
approach provided a de minimis safe harbor amount of income that may be 
used to pay administration expenses without constituting a material 
limitation on the surviving's spouse's right to income. A third 
approach provided that any charge to income for the payment of 
administration expenses constitutes a material limitation on the 
spouse's right to income.
    Notice 97-63 also asked for comments on whether the test for 
materiality should be based on a comparison of the relative amounts of 
the income and the expenses charged to the income; whether materiality 
should be based on projections as of the date of death rather than on 
the facts that develop afterwards; and whether present value principles 
should be applied.
    In response to Notice 97-63, several commentators suggested that 
local law should be determinative of whether an expense is a proper 
charge to income or principal. If the testamentary document directs the 
executor to charge expenses to income, and the charge is allowed under 
applicable local law, then the charge to income should not be treated

[[Page 69249]]

as a material limitation on the spouse's right to income.
    This approach was not adopted because statutory provisions relating 
to income and principal may vary from state to state, and this would 
result in disparate treatment of estates that are similarly situated 
but governed by different state law. Moreover, in states that have 
adopted some form of the Uniform Principal and Income Act, the 
definitions of principal and income, and the allocation of expenses 
thereto, can be specified in the will or trust instrument and given the 
effect of state law. Thus, simply following state law was thought to be 
too malleable to protect the policies underlying the marital and 
charitable deductions.
    Several commentators agreed with the de minimis safe harbor 
approach whereby a certain amount of income could be used to pay 
administration expenses without materially limiting the surviving 
spouse's right to the income. Under this approach, the safe harbor 
amount is determined in two steps: first, the present value of the 
surviving spouse's income interest for life is determined using 
actuarial principles and, second, the resulting amount is multiplied by 
a percentage, for example, 5 percent.
    The proposed regulations do not adopt this approach. Although a de 
minimis safe harbor approach would provide a bright line test for 
determining materiality in the context of the marital deduction, it is 
unclear how this approach would apply for charitable deduction purposes 
because there is no measuring life for valuing the income interest.
    One commentator suggested that, consistent with the plurality 
opinion in Estate of Hubert, the test for materiality should be 
quantitative, based upon a comparison between the amount of income 
charged with administration expenses and the total income earned during 
administration. The commentator, however, considered the requirement 
that projected income and expenses be presently valued to be 
impractical, complex, and uncertain. Another commentator considered a 
quantitative test to be impractical. A third commentator suggested that 
a quantitative test would require a factual determination in each case 
and, as a result, the period of estate administration would be greatly 
prolonged.
    Because these tests for materiality appear to be complex and 
difficult to administer, the proposed regulations adopt neither a 
quantitative test nor a test based on present values of projected 
income and expenses.
    Many commentators opposed an approach in which every charge to 
income is a material limitation on the spouse's right to income. Two 
commentators contended that adoption of this approach would effectively 
overrule the result in Estate of Hubert.
    One commentator suggested the approach adopted in the proposed 
regulations, a description of which follows, and two commentators 
suggested similar approaches.

Explanation of Provisions

    After carefully considering the comments, the Treasury and the 
Internal Revenue Service have determined that a test based on what 
constitutes a material limitation would prove too complex and would be 
administratively burdensome. For this reason, the proposed regulations 
eliminate the concept of materiality and, instead, establish rules 
providing that only administration expenses of a certain character 
which are charged to the marital property will reduce the value of the 
property for marital deduction purposes. It is anticipated that these 
rules will have uniform application to all estates, will be simple to 
administer, and will reflect the economic realities of estate 
administration. These same rules will also apply for purposes of the 
estate tax charitable deduction.
    Under the proposed regulations, a reduction is made to the date of 
death value of the property interest which passes from the decedent to 
the surviving spouse (or to a charitable organization described in 
section 2055) for the dollar amount of any estate transmission expenses 
incurred during the administration of the decedent's estate and charged 
to the property interest. Such a reduction is proper because these 
expenses would not have been incurred but for the decedent's death. No 
reduction is made for estate management expenses incurred with respect 
to the property and charged to the property because these expenses 
would have been incurred even if the death had not occurred. However, a 
reduction is made for estate management expenses charged to the marital 
property interest passing to the surviving spouse if the expenses were 
incurred in connection with property passing to someone other than the 
surviving spouse and a person other than the surviving spouse is 
entitled to the income from that property. Estate transmission expenses 
are all estate administration expenses that are not estate management 
expenses and include expenses incurred in collecting estate assets, 
paying debts, estate and inheritance taxes, and distributing the 
decedent's property. Estate management expenses are expenses incurred 
in connection with the investment of the estate assets and with their 
preservation and maintenance during the period of administration.

Proposed Effective Date

    These regulations are proposed to be effective for estates of 
decedents dying on or after the date the regulations are published in 
the Federal Register as final regulations.

Special Analyses

    It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is 
not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 
12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has 
been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act 
(5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and, because 
the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small 
entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not 
apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this 
notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its 
impact on small business.

Comments and Public Hearing

    Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, 
consideration will be given to any written comments (a signed original 
and eight (8) copies) that are submitted timely to the IRS. All 
comments will be available for public inspection and copying.
    A public hearing has been scheduled for April 21, 1999, beginning 
at 10 a.m. in Room 2615 of the Internal Revenue Building, 1111 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Due to building security 
procedures, visitors must enter at the 10th Street entrance, located 
between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, NW. In addition, all 
visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. 
Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond 
the immediate entrance area more than 15 minutes before the hearing 
starts. For information about having your name placed on the building 
access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of this preamble.
    The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who 
wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit written 
comments and an

[[Page 69250]]

outline of the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to 
each topic (signed original and eight (8) copies) by March 31, 1999. A 
period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making 
comments. An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be 
prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies 
of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing.

Drafting Information

    The principal author of these proposed regulations is Deborah Ryan, 
Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special 
Industries). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury 
Department participated in their development.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 20

    Estate taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 20 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 20--ESTATE TAX; ESTATES OF DECEDENTS DYING AFTER AUGUST 16, 
1954

    Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read 
in part as follows:

    Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 2. In Sec. 20.2055-1, paragraph (d)(6) is added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 20.2055-1  Deduction for transfers for public, charitable, and 
religious uses; in general.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (6) For the effect of certain administration expenses on the 
valuation of transfers for charitable deduction purposes, see 
Sec. 20.2056(b)-4(e). The rules provided in that section apply for 
purposes of both the marital and charitable deductions. This paragraph 
(d)(6) is effective for estates of decedents dying on or after the date 
these regulations are published in the Federal Register as final 
regulations.
    Par. 3. Section 20.2056(b)-4 is amended by:
    1. Removing the last two sentences of paragraph (a).
    2. Adding paragraph (e).
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec. 20.2056(b)-4  Marital deduction; valuation of interest passing to 
surviving spouse.

* * * * *
    (e) Effect of certain administration expenses--(1) Estate 
transmission expenses. For purposes of determining the marital 
deduction, the value of any deductible property interest which passed 
from the decedent to the surviving spouse shall be reduced by the 
amount of estate transmission expenses incurred during the 
administration of the decedent's estate and paid from the principal of 
the property interest or the income produced by the property interest. 
For purposes of this subsection, the term estate transmission expenses 
means all estate administration expenses that are not estate management 
expenses (as defined in paragraph (e)(2) of this section). Estate 
transmission expenses include expenses incurred in the collection of 
the decedent's assets, the payment of the decedent's debts and death 
taxes, and the distribution of the decedent's property to those who are 
entitled to receive it. Examples of these expenses include executor 
commissions and attorney fees (except to the extent specifically 
related to investment, preservation, and maintenance of the assets), 
probate fees, expenses incurred in construction proceedings and 
defending against will contests, and appraisal fees.
    (2) Estate management expenses--(i) In general. For purposes of 
determining the marital deduction, the value of any deductible property 
interest which passed from the decedent to the surviving spouse shall 
not be reduced by the amount of estate management expenses incurred in 
connection with the property interest during the administration of the 
decedent's estate and paid from the principal of the property interest 
or the income produced by the property interest. For marital deduction 
purposes, the value of any deductible property interest which passed 
from the decedent to the surviving spouse shall be reduced by the 
amount of any estate management expenses incurred in connection with 
property that passed to a beneficiary other than the surviving spouse 
if a beneficiary other than the surviving spouse is entitled to the 
income from the property and the expenses are charged to the deductible 
property interest which passed to the surviving spouse. For purposes of 
this subsection, the term estate management expenses means expenses 
incurred in connection with the investment of the estate assets and 
with their preservation and maintenance during the period of 
administration. Examples of these expenses include investment advisory 
fees, stock brokerage commissions, custodial fees, and interest.
    (ii) Special rule where estate management expenses are deducted on 
the federal estate tax return. For purposes of determining the marital 
deduction, the value of the deductible property interest which passed 
from the decedent to the surviving spouse is not increased as a result 
of the decrease in the federal estate tax liability attributable to any 
estate management expenses that are deducted as expenses of 
administration under section 2053 on the federal estate tax return.
    (3) Examples. The following examples illustrate the application of 
this paragraph (e). In each example, the decedent, who dies after 2006, 
makes a bequest of shares of ABC Corporation stock to the decedent's 
child. The bequest provides that the child is to receive the income 
from the shares from the date of the decedent's death. The value of the 
bequeathed shares, on the decedent's date of death, is $3,000,000. The 
residue of the estate is bequeathed to a trust which satisfies the 
requirements of section 2056(b)(7) as qualified terminable interest 
property. The value of the residue, on the decedent's date of death, 
before the payment of administration expenses and estate taxes, is 
$6,000,000. Under applicable local law, the executor has the discretion 
to pay administration expenses from the income or principal of the 
residuary estate. All estate taxes are to be paid from the residue. The 
state estate tax equals the state tax credit available under section 
2011. The examples are as follows:

    Example 1. During the period of administration, the estate 
incurs estate transmission expenses of $400,000, which the executor 
charges to the residue. For purposes of determining the marital 
deduction, the value of the residue is reduced by the federal and 
state estate taxes and by the estate transmission expenses. If the 
transmission expenses are deducted on the federal estate tax return, 
the marital deduction is $3,500,000 ($6,000,000 minus $400,000 
transmission expenses and minus $2,100,000 federal and state estate 
taxes). If the transmission expenses are deducted on the estate's 
income tax return rather than on the estate tax return, the marital 
deduction is $3,011,111 ($6,000,000 minus $400,000 transmission 
expenses and minus $2,588,889 federal and state estate taxes).
    Example 2. During the period of administration, the estate 
incurs estate management expenses of $400,000 in connection with the 
residue property passing for the benefit of the spouse. The executor 
charges these management expenses to the residue. For purposes of 
determining the marital deduction, the value of the residue is 
reduced by the federal and state estate taxes but is not reduced by 
the estate management expenses. If the management expenses are 
deducted on the estate's income tax return, the marital deduction is 
$3,900,000 ($6,000,000 minus $2,100,000 federal and state estate 
taxes). If the management expenses are deducted on the estate tax

[[Page 69251]]

return rather than on the estate's income tax return, the marital 
deduction remains $3,900,000, even though the federal and state 
estate taxes now total only $1,880,000. The marital deduction is not 
increased by the reduction in estate taxes attributable to deducting 
the management expenses on the federal estate tax return.
    Example 3. During the period of administration, the estate 
incurs estate management expenses of $400,000 in connection with the 
bequest of ABC Corporation stock to the decedent's child. The 
executor charges these management expenses to the residue. For 
purposes of determining the marital deduction, the value of the 
residue is reduced by the federal and state estate taxes and by the 
management expenses. The management expenses reduce the value of the 
residue because they are charged to the property passing to the 
spouse even though they were incurred with respect to stock passing 
to the child and the spouse is not entitled to the income from the 
stock during the period of estate administration. If the management 
expenses are deducted on the estate's income tax return, the marital 
deduction is $3,011,111 ($6,000,000 minus $400,000 management 
expenses and minus $2,588,889 federal and state estate taxes). If 
the management expenses are deducted on the estate tax return rather 
than on the estate's income tax return, the marital deduction 
remains $3,011,111, even though the federal and state estate taxes 
now total only $2,368,889. The marital deduction is not increased by 
the reduction in estate taxes attributable to deducting the 
management expenses on the federal estate tax return.

    (4) Effective date. This paragraph (e) applies to estates of 
decedents dying on or after the date these regulations are published as 
final regulations in the Federal Register.
Robert E. Wenzel,
Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
[FR Doc. 98-33125 Filed 12-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P