Schroeder v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
924 F.2d 1547 (1991)

- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
Thomas Woodmansee had two adult daughters from a previous marriage, Martha and Lou Ann. In 1981, Thomas created a large stock account, naming himself and Peggy, his wife, as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. A few days later, Thomas signed a will in which his property was to be placed in trust, the income to be used to provide for Peggy during her life and the corpus to be divided between Martha and Lou Ann after Peggy’s death. Thomas died two months later. The stock account was worth $229,843 and was unknown to Martha and Lou Ann, so it caused a significant rift among Thomas’s heirs. Thomas’s will was admitted to probate, and Martha’s husband, Harry Schroeder (plaintiff)) was the executor. In settlement of the controversy between Peggy, Martha, and Lou Ann, Peggy agreed to place the stock account into a trust, with a fourth of the annual income going to Peggy and the remaining three-fourths divided evenly between Martha and Lou Ann. After Peggy’s death, the principal would be divided evenly between Martha and Lou Ann, or their heirs. Peggy also filed her election to take her statutory spousal share rather than taking under the terms of Thomas’s will. The spousal share, at the time of Thomas’s death, had a fair market value of $77,121. Peggy deposited those funds into the trust account. When Schroeder filed Thomas’s estate-tax return, he included both the joint stock account and the spousal election share in the gross estate, also claiming both as part of the federal marital deduction. The government (defendant) disallowed the deduction and issued a notice of deficiency. Schroeder paid that amount and then claimed a refund, which the government denied. Schroeder then filed suit. At issue was whether the amounts in question had passed to a surviving spouse. A treasury regulation indicated that an interest in property obtained pursuant to a compromise of a will contest or adversarial proceeding was not deductible as an interest passing to a spouse. However, the estate noted that no will contest or adversarial proceeding had been actually filed in this matter between Peggy, Martha, and Lou Ann. The district court ruled for the government, and the estate appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.