Wills Trusts & Estates keyed to Dukeminier
Estate of Rapp v. Commissioner
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Rapp’s will included a trust that gave the trustees power to use the funds for the proper health, education, and support of his wife Laura B. Rapp, if in the absolute discretion of the trustee such funds were needed. Mrs. Rapp asked the probate court to modify this portion of her husband’s will so that the trust created by the will would qualify for the marital deduction as a QTIP trust. Rapp alleged that it was her husband’s intent to create the trust to qualify for the deduction and that he believed that the trustees would pay all of the income of the trust at least annually to or for the benefit of the petitioner during her lifetime. She claimed that the trust was a part of the marital deduction gift as defined by section 21520(b) of the California Probate Code. At oral argument, no witnesses were called and no documents were admitted into evidence. The IRS did not receive notice of the petition and did not appear. The petition relied upon the probate’s power to modif y or terminate a trust upon consent of all parties, or its power to modify or terminate the trust due to changed circumstances under the California Probate Code. The executor attempted to claim the trust as a QTIP exemption. The IRS rejected the exemption and the executor appealed. The tax court held that the probate court erred in reforming the will because it was not ambiguous and there was little or no evidence that Mr. Rapp intended to create a QTIP trust.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.