## Facts

- C. Alan Brantingham died testate on March 25, 1954, in Massachusetts, and his will was probated there.
- Alan’s will devised all of his property to his children (per stirpes), subject to a life estate (“life use”) in favor of his wife, Beatrice F. Brantingham.
- The will gave Beatrice authority to consume principal, providing that she had the “uncontrolled right, power and authority to use and devote such of the corpus thereof from time to time as in her judgment is necessary for her maintenance, comfort and happiness.”
- After later residing in Illinois, Beatrice sought and obtained appointment in an Illinois court in 1957 to serve as trustee for the property subject to her life interest and invasion power.
- Beatrice maintained the trust corpus and made no principal distributions to herself before her death on June 2, 1972.
- In filing the federal estate tax return for Beatrice’s estate, the executor (John C. Brantingham) did not include the value of the property subject to Beatrice’s power of appointment in her gross estate.
- The IRS determined that the power of appointment was includible in Beatrice’s gross estate, issued a deficiency (based on a value of $294,577), and the executor paid and sued for a refund.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the United States, and the executor appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Beatrice’s testamentary power to consume or appoint trust corpus for amounts “necessary for her maintenance, comfort and happiness” was a taxable general power of appointment includible in her gross estate.
2. Whether summary judgment for the United States was proper on the refund claim challenging the IRS’s inclusion of $294,577 in Beatrice’s gross estate.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for the United States.
- The court held that Beatrice’s power over the corpus was includible in her gross estate; the IRS did not err in assessing the deficiency.
- Because the power was includible, the executor was not entitled to an estate tax refund.

## Legal Principles

- Federal estate tax law includes in a decedent’s gross estate property subject to a general power of appointment held at death. I.R.C. § 2041.
- A power is not treated as “general” if it is limited by an ascertainable standard tied to the holder’s health, education, support, or maintenance. I.R.C. § 2041(b)(1)(A).
- Language that authorizes invasion of principal for purposes beyond a measurable support-type standard (such as “happiness”) is treated as a meaningful expansion of discretion and can cause the power to be treated as general for estate tax inclusion.
- The scope of the power created by a will is determined under applicable state law principles of will and trust construction, but the federal tax result follows the Internal Revenue Code’s classification of that power.
- Whether the power was exercised in fact is not controlling; the tax question turns on the legal authority held at death.

## Conclusion

Because Alan’s will granted Beatrice a life interest plus a broad power to use the corpus for what she judged “necessary for her maintenance, comfort and happiness,” the Seventh Circuit agreed with the IRS that Beatrice held a power of appointment includible in her gross estate; the $294,577 value was properly included, and the estate was not entitled to a refund.


Brantingham v. United States, 631 F.2d 542 (1980)