2008 Woodie Awards
Judge rules on $810,000 tax in favor of estate
Probate court hands back verdict, Denman's grandnephew to pay tax; Thuss appeals decision
Jen Burn
Issue date: 4/25/08 Section: News
After mediation between Trinity and the estate of Gilbert Denman Jr. failed in March 2007, to resolve the dispute over a tax which was holding up the millions of dollars left to Trinity by Denman went back to probate court. During a Sept. 6, 2007 hearing, 27-year-old Wendel Thuss was ruled responsible for paying the $810,000 tax on the ranch left to him by Denman, his late granduncle.
The ruling was the culmination of almost two years of debate regarding the party legally accountable for the large tax on El Capote ranch, according to a September San Antonio Express-News article. A lawyer and local philanthropist, Denman left El Capote to Thuss in a will drafted by his own hand. In addition, he left both Trinity and the San Antonio Museum of Art (SAMA) the money in his estate. The value of the bequeathed assets to the two non-profits has been estimated to be up to $22 million, according to the article.
However, in leaving the ranch to his grandson in his will, Denman's wording was unclear on whether or not the will absolved Thuss from paying what is known as a Generation Skipping Transfer Tax (GST).
According to a Trinitonian article last April, Denman wrote that "any transfer, estate, inheritance, succession and other death taxes … and any other such taxes shall be paid out of my residuary estate." However, by donating the ranch directly to Thuss, and therefore skipping a generation, Denman's failure to direct reference the GST is not sufficient to absolve Thuss from paying the tax.
A law student at the University of Texas at Austin, Thuss would possibly be forced to sell off part of the ranch in order to pay the tax; an action which relatives argue was clearly not Denman's original intent, according to the Trinitonian article. Denman and his brother, Leroy, had bought the various portions of the ranch from their six siblings to ensure the land would stay in the family.
When questioned about Trinity's standpoint on the situation, Sharon Jones Schweitzer, assistant vice president for University Communications, stated that "Trinity was seeking a ruling for clarification as to the University's responsibility to the estate. We really felt that it was a situation where the University needed clarification from the court."
The ruling was the culmination of almost two years of debate regarding the party legally accountable for the large tax on El Capote ranch, according to a September San Antonio Express-News article. A lawyer and local philanthropist, Denman left El Capote to Thuss in a will drafted by his own hand. In addition, he left both Trinity and the San Antonio Museum of Art (SAMA) the money in his estate. The value of the bequeathed assets to the two non-profits has been estimated to be up to $22 million, according to the article.
However, in leaving the ranch to his grandson in his will, Denman's wording was unclear on whether or not the will absolved Thuss from paying what is known as a Generation Skipping Transfer Tax (GST).
According to a Trinitonian article last April, Denman wrote that "any transfer, estate, inheritance, succession and other death taxes … and any other such taxes shall be paid out of my residuary estate." However, by donating the ranch directly to Thuss, and therefore skipping a generation, Denman's failure to direct reference the GST is not sufficient to absolve Thuss from paying the tax.
A law student at the University of Texas at Austin, Thuss would possibly be forced to sell off part of the ranch in order to pay the tax; an action which relatives argue was clearly not Denman's original intent, according to the Trinitonian article. Denman and his brother, Leroy, had bought the various portions of the ranch from their six siblings to ensure the land would stay in the family.
When questioned about Trinity's standpoint on the situation, Sharon Jones Schweitzer, assistant vice president for University Communications, stated that "Trinity was seeking a ruling for clarification as to the University's responsibility to the estate. We really felt that it was a situation where the University needed clarification from the court."
Be the first to comment on this story