## Facts

- Raymond J. Mazza, domiciled in Maryland, died testate naming his wife, Ennis L. Mazza, as executrix and sole (residuary) beneficiary.
- The will contained no specific direction allocating payment of federal estate taxes.
- At death, the decedent and his sister, Olga M. Mazza, held District of Columbia real property as joint tenants with right of survivorship; the property passed to Olga by operation of joint-tenancy survivorship, outside the will.
- The jointly held D.C. property was included in the federal gross estate under I.R.C. § 2040.
- Ennis paid the federal estate tax from estate assets and sued Olga in federal district court for contribution equal to the portion of tax attributable to the D.C. joint-tenancy property.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Olga, applying D.C. law and treating the tax as payable from the residuary estate without apportionment against the surviving joint tenant.

## Issues

1. Whether apportionment of federal estate tax attributable to D.C. real property held in joint tenancy is governed by the law of the decedent’s domicile (Maryland) or the law of the situs (District of Columbia).
2. If District of Columbia law applies, whether it requires apportionment against a surviving joint tenant or places the burden on the residuary estate.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed the summary judgment for Olga and remanded.
- The court held that, absent a controlling federal rule, apportionment of the federal estate tax burden is governed by the law of the decedent’s domicile, not by the situs of the real property.
- Applying Maryland’s apportionment policy, the surviving joint tenant is subject to pro rata contribution for the share of federal estate tax attributable to the jointly held D.C. property included in the taxable estate.
- Because domicile law controlled, the court did not reach the issue of how D.C. law should be interpreted on apportionment.

## Legal Principles

- Federal law determines what property is included in the taxable estate, but state (or local) law determines how the resulting federal estate tax burden is allocated among those benefiting from taxable transfers.
- In the absence of a controlling federal apportionment rule, federal estate-tax apportionment is treated as part of estate administration and is governed by the law of the decedent’s domicile, even when the taxed asset is real property located in another jurisdiction and passes by survivorship.
- A domicile statute requiring pro rata apportionment (absent a contrary testamentary direction) supports contribution from non-probate transferees whose received property increased the federal estate tax.

## Conclusion

The court held that Maryland, as the decedent’s domicile, supplied the governing apportionment rule, requiring pro rata contribution from the surviving joint tenant for the federal estate tax attributable to the D.C. joint-tenancy real property included in the gross estate, and it reversed and remanded without construing District of Columbia apportionment law.


Mazza v. Mazza, 475 F.2d 385 (D.C. Cir. 1973)