MATTER OF KING Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A testator declined to exercise a power of appointment over a trust but directed in his will that the trust property pay the estate taxes it generated. The court upheld this direction, finding it permissible under federal tax law even without exercising the power.
Legal Significance: Establishes that under federal law (§ 2207 IRC), a donee of a power of appointment can, without exercising the power, direct that the appointive property bear the estate tax burden it generates, overriding default state and federal apportionment rules.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Grace King’s will established a marital deduction trust for her husband, Albert, granting him a testamentary power of appointment over the ~$2.5 million principal. The power could only be exercised by a will executed after her death. In default of appointment, the principal was to be distributed one-third to charities and two-thirds to a trust for their daughter. Albert’s will, executed before Grace’s death, expressly declined to exercise the power. However, Article Seventh of his will directed that any federal estate taxes attributable to the inclusion of the appointive property in his taxable estate be paid entirely from the principal of that appointive property. Albert’s personal estate was only ~$88,000. Upon his death, the executor sought to charge the substantial estate tax liability generated by the appointive property against that property, including the charities’ share. The charities objected, arguing Albert could not shift the tax burden without exercising the power and that their share should be tax-exempt.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can the donee of a general power of appointment, without exercising the power, validly direct in his will that the appointive property bear the full federal estate tax burden attributable to it, including the shares of charitable takers in default?
Yes. The decedent’s direction to shift the tax burden to the appointive Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irur
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Can the donee of a general power of appointment, without exercising the power, validly direct in his will that the appointive property bear the full federal estate tax burden attributable to it, including the shares of charitable takers in default?
Conclusion
The case clarifies that a donee's power to "direct otherwise" under § Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerc
Legal Rule
Under § 2207 of the Internal Revenue Code, a decedent may direct Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat
Legal Analysis
The court reversed the lower courts, holding that their interpretation of federal Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exe
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A will can direct appointive property to pay its share of