Sponsored By
Trusts & Estates logo

Tips From the Pros: Did the Moores Make The Wrong Argument?Tips From the Pros: Did the Moores Make The Wrong Argument?

Charles A. Redd explains why it’s regrettable that the taxpayers in Moore v. United States didn’t seek certiorari on their argument.

Charles A. Redd, Attorney

July 16, 2024

6 Min Read
TE-tips.jpg

In United States v. Carlton, 1 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the retroactive application of Internal Revenue Code Section 2057, as amended in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987.2 Carlton remains the Supreme Court’s most recent comprehensive pronouncement on the constitutionality of retroactive tax laws.

As originally enacted as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986,3 IRC Section 2057 allowed an estate to take an estate tax deduction in an amount equal to 50% of the proceeds of “any sale of employer securities by the executor of an estate” to “an employee stock ownership plan” (ESOP). Jerry Carlton, in his capacity as executor of the will of Willametta Day, who died on Sept. 29, 1985, sought to take advantage of this deduction. Acc...

Unlock All Access Premium Subscription

Get Trusts & Estates articles, digital editions, and an optional print subscription. Choose your subscription now and dive into expert insights today!

Already Subscribed?

About the Author

Charles A. Redd

Attorney, Stinson LLP

A partner with Stinson LLP in its St. Louis office, Mr. Redd concentrates his practice in estate planning, estate and trust administration and estate and trust-related litigation. Mr. Redd is a Fellow of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel and currently teaches as an adjunct professor at Northwestern Law. He was a contributing author to Adams, 21st Century Estate Planning: Practical Applications (Cannon Financial Institute, 2002). Mr. Redd received his J.D. from Saint Louis University.