In re Estate of Shell, 290 Neb. 791

Marvin H. Shell died in Feb. 2012; his will devised the residuary estate one-half to Jane M. Voboril and one-half to Sharon Vanosdall.
Paragraph I of the will directed the personal representative to pay debts, administration expenses, and to pay "all inheritance, legacy or estate taxes... payable by reason of my death" from the probate estate "without contribution or reimbursement from any person."
Voboril, appointed personal representative, listed probate and substantial nonprobate assets (annuity PODs) and treated the inheritance tax as an expense of the estate when preparing the final accounting.
The Tax determination allocated inheritance tax amounts to each beneficiary; Voboril’s accounting reduced both beneficiaries’ distributions by the total tax amount (i.e., paid "off the top").
Vanosdall objected, arguing the will did not clearly shift tax burden and that taxes should instead be apportioned among beneficiaries under the statutory pattern.
The county court approved Voboril’s accounting; on appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding the will clearly expressed intent to treat inheritance taxes as an estate expense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Vanosdall)	Defendant's Argument (Voboril)	Held
Whether the will clearly shifts inheritance tax burden off beneficiaries and makes tax an estate expense	Will lacks clear, unambiguous language to supplant statutory apportionment; taxes should be apportioned to each beneficiary proportional to their tax rates	Paragraph I expressly refers to inheritance/estate taxes and directs payment from the probate estate, coupled with directions to pay debts and administration expenses — indicates intent to pay taxes "off the top"	The will clearly and unambiguously shows intent to treat inheritance taxes as an expense of the estate; affirmed
Whether phrase "without contribution or reimbursement from any person" prevents treating taxes as estate expense	That phrase supports beneficiary allocation and prevents contribution/reimbursement schemes	Phrase indicates intent to avoid prorating or complex apportionment and instead have estate pay taxes directly	Phrase interpreted as supporting estate-payment approach, not requiring proportional beneficiary apportionment

In re Estate of Odenreider, 286 Neb. 480 (Neb. 2013) (precedent on apportionment and executor duties)
Martin v. Ullsperger, 284 Neb. 526 (Neb. 2012) (interpretive principles for wills and tax allocations)
Nielsen v. Sidner, 191 Neb. 324 (Neb. 1974) (ambiguities resolved in favor of statutory pattern absent clear intent)
In re Estate of Eriksen, 271 Neb. 806 (Neb. 2006) (language paying "my" debts, expenses, and taxes not always sufficient; distinguishing clauses that expressly refer to estate/inheritance taxes)
In re Estate of Smatlan, 1 Neb. App. 295 (Neb. App. 1992) (rules on will language required to shift tax burden)