Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Estate of Millikin v. Commissioner

106 F.3d 1263 (1997)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...

Estate of Millikin v. Commissioner

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

106 F.3d 1263 (1997)

Facts

A trust known as Trust B owned property that included liquid assets and a residential estate called Ripplestone. Marguerite Millikin held a power of general appointment over Trust B’s property. Any unappointed Trust B property would go to a trust known as Trust C for the benefit of other family members. When Millikin died, her general power of appointment meant that Trust B’s property was considered nonprobate property, but the property’s value was included in Millikin’s gross estate. In her will, Millikin exercised her power of appointment to direct that her executor use Trust B’s property to pay the estate taxes owed on Trust B’s property. Millikin did not appoint Ripplestone to anyone, but her will left a museum the right to choose art pieces from a collection in Ripplestone’s gallery. Millikin’s estate (plaintiff) paid to maintain Ripplestone for almost a year while the museum chose its pieces. The estate then filed an estate-tax return deducting administrative expenses from Millikin’s gross estate for (1) Ripplestone’s maintenance expenses for the preceding year and (2) the estimated future expenses of selling Ripplestone. After the return was filed, the estate sold Ripplestone. An Internal Revenue Service (defendant) audit led to disputes, including whether the estate could deduct the costs of maintaining and selling Ripplestone as administrative expenses. The estate petitioned the United States Tax Court for relief. Applying Estate of Park v. Commissioner, the Tax Court held that state law controlled whether an estate’s administrative expenses were deductible. Under Ohio law, administrative expenses were deductible if they were necessary, reasonable, and just. The Tax Court ruled that the expense of maintaining Ripplestone during the art-selection process was necessary to distribute Millikin’s estate. However, the Tax Court found that Trust B contained $9 million in liquid assets and, therefore, that the estate did not need to liquidate Ripplestone to pay taxes. Rather, Ripplestone could have been given directly to Trust C. Because the sale was unnecessary, the sale expenses were unnecessary and not deductible. The estate appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 35,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership