Attorney-at-Law

TITANIUM? TUNGSTEN? CHROMIUM? – PART DEUX

In Uncategorized on 02/02/2022 at 16:30

The trusty attorney for Estate of Anthony K. Washington, Deceased, Lenda Washington, Personal Representative, T.C. Memo. 2022-4, filed 2/22/22 (eleven, count ’em, eleven, years before we get a date like this one again), is definitely in the running for a Taishoff Metallurgy Award.

Lenda is divorced spouse of the late Anthony K, but also his personal representative, and not so incidentally was supposed to be the beneficiary of the $100K life policy the Late Anthony K.’s employer maintained while the late Anthony K. was so employed. “Was supposed” because, though their divorce agreement said so, and provided it was an irrevocable designation, the named beneficiary remained their son, who glommed the proceeds when the late Anthony K. became the late Anthony K.

And their divorce agreement was explicitly not incorporated in the divorce judgment. Nonetheless, trusty attorney claims Lenda has a judgment against the estate for $100K, reducing RCP, so that the $10K OIC for the $183K the late Anthony K. owed in income tax makes the doubt-as-to-collectability cut, or maybe the Effective Tax Administration/Special Circumstances cut.

Well, Appeals didn’t have to send that OIC to the Austin OIC Special Victims Unit, because collectability had to be resolved first, and it was. The SO never reckoned the $100K into RCP, because the beneficiary change never happened, and Lenda could have taken the divorce agreement to the late Anthony K.’s employer and had them make the change. And Lenda’s claim that the divorce judgment gave her a lien on the insurance policy was thus irrelevant, as was her claimed judgment lien on the proceeds.

Trusty attorney objects to including the late Anthony K.’s 401(k) in RCP, but Lenda waived all that in the divorce agreement, even agreeing to give it to the estate if she got it by mistake.

Judge Emin (“Eminent”) Toro further justifies that sobriquet with this summation.

“When boiled down to their essence, the Estate’s arguments amount to a plea (1) that Mr. and Ms. Washington’s son be permitted to retain $100,000 in life insurance proceeds paid to him under the policy maintained by Mr. Washington’s employer, (2) that Ms. Washington (who, under the [divorce agreement], was supposed to have received the life insurance proceeds) be permitted to recover instead $100,000 from a retirement account to which she had disclaimed all rights, and  (3) that the United States be required to compromise its claim for tax due on the substantial income that Mr. Washington earned during the Relevant Tax Years. We do not see how effective tax administration could possibly support such a result. See Treas. Reg. § 301.7122-1(b)(3)(iii).” 2022-4 T. C. Memo., at p. 28.

I don’t see how either, Judge.

Technical takeaway: Ever wonder where you are Golsenized when you’re dead? See 2022-4 T. C. Memo., at p. 2, footnote 2, and be grateful it won’t be your problem.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: