Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Prentice Halls Federal Taxation 2016 Corporations Partnerships Estates and Trusts 29th Edition Pope Solutions Manual
Prentice Halls Federal Taxation 2016 Corporations Partnerships Estates and Trusts 29th Edition Pope Solutions Manual
Discussion Questions
C:8-1 80% minimum ownership. The IRC requires that a parent corporation own stock in at
least one includible corporation having at least 80% of the includible corporation’s total voting
power and at least 80% of the total value of the includible corporation’s outstanding stock. The
IRC also requires that, for each affiliated group member other than the parent corporation, the
parent corporation and other group members must own stock having at least 80% of the member
corporation’s total voting power and at least 80% of the total value of the member corporation’s
outstanding stock. Certain nonvoting preferred stock is ignored for these stock ownership
requirements. pp. C:8-2 and C:8-3.
C:8-2 a. Includible.
b. Generally not includible. However, Sec. 1504(d) allows inclusion of certain 100%-
owned Canadian and Mexican corporations that are maintained to comply with local law
regarding title and operation of property.
c. Generally not includible. However, Sec. 1504(c)(1) permits two or more Sec. 801
domestic life insurance companies to file a consolidated return, and Sec. 1504(c)(2) permits a
parent corporation to elect to have all domestic life insurance companies for which the 80%
stock ownership tests have been met for at least five years to be included in its consolidated tax
return.
d. The limited liability company (LLC) may or may not be includible. Under the check-
the-box regulations, an unincorporated business entity may choose whether to be taxed as a
corporation or not. If the LLC chooses to be taxed as a corporation, it is treated as an includible
corporation, provided it otherwise qualifies (e.g., it is a domestic LLC and has not elected to be
treated as an S corporation). If the LLC has not elected to be treated as a corporation, it is not an
includible corporation and generally cannot be included in a consolidated tax return. However, if
such an LLC is wholly owned by one of the affiliated group members, the tax law will treat the
LLC as a disregarded entity, and the group member will treat the LLC’s profits and losses as its
own profits and losses. If the LLC has not elected to be treated as a corporation and it has two or
more owners, it is treated as a partnership. The LLC’s profits and losses pass through to its
owners under the partnership tax rules and will be included in an affiliated group’s consolidated
tax return if the group elects to file a consolidated tax return and one or more affiliated group
members are owners of the LLC. Unlike a single-member LLC, a multi-member LLC is not a
disregarded entity, so the consolidated tax return rules (e.g., intercompany transaction rules) do
not apply to it. pp. C:8-3 and C:8-4, and Chapter C:2.
C:8-3 a. P, S, and T comprise an affiliated group. P and S are part of the group because P owns
at least 80% of S’s stock. T is included because it is at least 80%-owned by P and S (49% + 51%
= 100%). R is not part of the affiliated group because it is not at least 80%-owned by the
corporations in the group; Pamela owns its stock.
C:8-4 P and S comprise both an affiliated group of corporations and a controlled group of
corporations. As an affiliated group, P and S can elect to file a consolidated tax return, but they
are not required to do so.
If P and S do not elect to file a consolidated tax return, each will file a separate tax return.
Section 1561 allows a controlled group to benefit only once from the 15%, 25%, and 34% tax
brackets. P and S allocate each bracket equally between them unless they adopt a special
apportionment plan. Section 1561 and other IRC provisions also allow a controlled group to
benefit only once from certain other tax provisions, such as the $40,000 alternative minimum tax
exemption amount and the maximum amount of depreciable property that can be immediately
expensed under Sec. 179.
If P and S elect to file a consolidated tax return, the P-S group will compute its
consolidated tax liability under the consolidated tax return rules, which generally treat the group
as if it were one corporation. The group will not have to allocate the 15%, 25%, and 34% tax
brackets, as well as the other tax provisions that a controlled group’s members must allocate
among themselves, because they are filing a single tax return. However, if P and another
corporation, X, comprise a brother-sister controlled group, these items must be allocated between
the P-S consolidated group and X. pp. C:8-2 through C:8-4, and Chapter C:3.
C:8-5 Some of the differences between an affiliated group and a controlled group are as follows:
1. Brother-sister controlled groups exist, but brother-sister affiliated groups do not exist.
For example, if an individual owns all the stock of A and B Corporations, A and B comprise a
brother-sister controlled group but do not comprise an affiliated group.
2. For both an affiliated group and a parent-subsidiary controlled group, the parent
corporation must own at least 80% of the stock of at least one other corporation in the group, and
the parent corporation and other group members must own at least 80% of the stock of each
corporation in the group other than the parent. For an affiliated group, this 80% stock ownership
must be met with respect to the member corporation’s total voting power and the total value of
its stock. For a parent-subsidiary controlled group, this 80% stock ownership must be met with
respect to the member corporation’s total voting power or the total value of its stock. Thus, the
group must meet both 80% stock ownership tests to be an affiliated group, but meeting either of
the two tests will cause the two corporations to be a parent-subsidiary controlled group.
C:8-6 Only an affiliated group of corporations can file a consolidated tax return. To comprise
an affiliated group, the corporations all must be includible corporations and must satisfy two
80% stock ownership requirements. Only P and S1 comprise an affiliated group. S3 is not
included in the group because it is not at least 80%-owned by affiliated group members. S2 is
not included in the group because, as a foreign corporation, it is not an includible corporation.
Financial accounting rules require a consolidated set of financial statements for a parent
corporation and those subsidiaries it controls. Control generally is deemed to exist when the parent
directly or indirectly owns more than 50% of the subsidiary’s stock. The consolidated subsidiary
can be domestic or foreign. Thus, P, S1, S2, and S3 generally must be included in a set of
consolidated financial statements. Consolidation is required and thus is not elective under financial
accounting rules, unlike the rules for federal income tax purposes. pp. C:8-2 through C:8-4.
C:8-7 Section 1502 specifically authorizes the Treasury Department to write consolidated return
regulations so that a consolidated group’s tax liability “may be returned, determined, computed,
assessed, collected, and adjusted, in such manner as clearly to reflect the income tax liability.”
Thus, Congress is delegating its rule-making authority to the Treasury Department, making the
consolidated return regulations legislative regulations. In contrast, interpretive regulations
merely make the IRC’s statutory language easier to understand and apply. Congress chose to
delegate this rule-making authority to the Treasury Department because the consolidated return
area is complex. Congress gave the consolidated return regulations further authority by allowing
an affiliated group to file a consolidated tax return on the condition that the group consents to the
consolidated return regulations in effect before the due date (without extensions) for its first
consolidated tax return. pp. C:8-4 and C:8-5.
C:8-8 a. No. The affiliated group does not cease to exist because P continues to be affiliated
with at least one other corporation, S.
b. T may or may not be required to file a consolidated tax return with Z. If Z is a
member of an affiliated group that has been filing consolidated tax returns, T must join in its
filing. If Z is not an affiliated group member (or is a member of an affiliated group that has not
elected to file a consolidated tax return), T is not required to file a consolidated tax return with Z.
However, Z and T could elect to do so.
c. Generally, no. A corporation generally has to wait 60 months before it can rejoin the
same consolidated group. After the 60-month period expires, T must again file a consolidated
tax return with P and S, assuming that the affiliated group continues to exist and the IRS has not
granted it permission to discontinue filing on a consolidated basis. The 60-month rule does not
prevent T from filing a consolidated tax return with Z while they are affiliated. The IRS may
grant permission to rejoin the same consolidated group before the 60-month period expires.
Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc.
C:8-3
d. In Part a, the affiliated group would cease to exist assuming P does not become
affiliated with another corporation before the end of the current year. The answer for Part b
would not change. The answer for Part c would not change except P and T would not be
required to file a consolidated tax return after the 60-month period expires. Because the previous
P-T affiliated group ceases to exist, a new affiliated group arises when P purchases all of T’s
stock from Z. This new P-T affiliated group may elect to file a consolidated tax return after the
60-month period expires, but it is not required to do so. pp. C:8-5 and C:8-6.
C:8-9 If an affiliated group elects to file tax returns on a consolidated basis, it generally must
continue to do so for as long as the group’s common parent remains as the common parent and is
affiliated with at least one subsidiary at the beginning of the year with which it was affiliated at
the end of the prior year. Thus, P, S, and T could file separate tax returns if P no longer owns at
least 80% (by vote and by value) of S’s and T’s stock. This situation would occur if P were to
sell more than 20% of S’s and T’s stock or if S and T were to issue stock to another person such
that P’s ownership decreases to less than 80%. If this situation were to occur during the current
year, the group still would have to file a consolidated tax return for the current year and include
in it P’s taxable income or loss for the entire year and S’s and T’s taxable income or loss for the
part of the year they were group members. S and T would file separate tax returns for the post-
affiliation part of the year, and all three corporations would file separate tax returns in the next
year (assuming none of the corporations becomes affiliated with another consolidated group).
Alternatively, the IRS could, for “good cause,” permit the P-S-T group to discontinue filing a
consolidated tax return. pp. C:8-5 through C:8-8.
C:8-11 Transactions a and b, as well as c for June 16 through December 31. Intercompany
transactions are transactions between corporations that are in the same consolidated group
immediately after the transaction. Thus, transactions Parts a and b are intercompany transactions.
In Part c, the services S2 performs for S1 from January 1 through June 15 are not intercompany
transactions because S2 is not yet a member of S1’s consolidated group, but the services performed
from June 16 through December 31 are intercompany transactions. In Part d, P’s sale of inventory
to the S1-S2 Partnership is not an intercompany transaction because, as an unincorporated entity,
the partnership is not a member of P’s consolidated group. If the S1-S2 Partnership had elected to
be treated as a corporation under the “check-the-box” regulations, P’s sale of inventory to the
partnership would be an intercompany transaction. pp. C:8-2 through C:8-4 and C:8-8 through
C:8-10.
C:8-12
Part Intercompany Item Corresponding Item
C:8-13 The lending group member’s (S’s) interest income is matched with the borrowing group
member’s (B’s) interest expense for consolidated tax return purposes under the matching rule.
The intercompany items are S’s interest income accruals. The corresponding items are B’s
interest expense accruals. The recomputed corresponding items are zero because there would be
no interest income or expense if S and B were a single entity; the intercompany loan would be
merely an internal loan. S’s interest income accrues at the same time as B’s interest expense
accrues because they both use the accrual method of accounting, so the group will immediately
include S’s interest income in consolidated taxable income under the matching rule. S’s interest
income and B’s interest expense generally will offset one another in arriving at consolidated
Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc.
C:8-5
taxable income. The group will not defer the interest income’s inclusion because no lapse in
time occurs between S’s accrual of its interest income and B’s accrual of its interest expense.
For consolidated financial statement purposes, S’s interest income and B’s interest
expense are usually eliminated. This elimination generally has the same zero net effect on
consolidated net income as it has on consolidated taxable income. Eliminating the interest
income and interest expense, rather than allowing them to merely offset one another, is important
because it may affect ratios that a financial statement user computes. pp. C:8-10, C:8-11,
C:8-15, and C:8-16.
C:8-14 The problem does not provide enough information to tell whether the corporations would
obtain a greater charitable contribution deduction for the current year by filing a consolidated tax
return or separate tax returns. Recall that the corporate charitable contributions deduction is
limited to 10% of taxable income computed without regard to the charitable contribution
deduction, NOL carrybacks, capital loss carrybacks, the dividends-received deduction, and the
U.S. production activities deduction.
Brooklyn and Bronx might obtain the same charitable contribution deduction whether
they file a consolidated tax return or separate tax returns. This result might occur if each
corporation’s charitable contributions are less than its separate 10% limitation and their total
charitable contributions are less than the consolidated 10% limitation.
A second possibility is that Brooklyn and Bronx would obtain a larger charitable
contribution deduction by filing a consolidated tax return than by filing separate tax returns.
This result might occur if Brooklyn makes charitable contributions greater than its separate 10%
limitation and Bronx makes no contributions. By filing a consolidated tax return, the group may
increase its deductions because Bronx’s 10% limitation in excess of its zero contributions may
allow the group to deduct more of Brooklyn’s contributions than Brooklyn could deduct
separately. In short, Bronx’s excess limitation can offset Brooklyn’s excess contributions.
A third possibility is that Brooklyn and Bronx would obtain a smaller charitable
contribution deduction by filing a consolidated tax return than by filing separate tax returns.
This might occur if Brooklyn makes charitable contributions greater than its separate 10%
limitation and Bronx makes no contributions and has a net operating loss for the current year.
By filing a consolidated tax return, the amount of deductions may decrease because Bronx’s net
operating loss makes the consolidated 10% limitation less than Brooklyn’s separate 10%
limitation, so the group could deduct fewer charitable contributions on a consolidated basis than
it could on a separate basis. p. C:8-19.
C:8-15 Many reasons may explain why the group’s consolidated capital gain net income or net
capital loss is not merely the sum of the members’ separate capital gain net incomes and net
capital losses if they were to file separate tax returns. Three important reasons are the following:
1. Net Sec. 1231 gains are treated as long-term capital gains (if they are not treated as
ordinary income due to nonrecaptured net Sec. 1231 losses), but net Sec. 1231 losses are treated
as ordinary losses. For example, suppose that one group member has a $10,000 net Sec. 1231
gain and another group member has an $8,000 net Sec. 1231 loss. If the group’s members file
separate tax returns, the $10,000 gain is treated as a long-term capital gain, and the $8,000 loss is
treated as an ordinary loss. If the group files a consolidated tax return, it nets the $10,000 gain
and $8,000 loss and reports a $2,000 consolidated net Sec. 1231 gain, which is treated as a long-
term capital gain.
Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc.
C:8-6
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Then was the time for General Pavia’s action. Arthur Houghton,
correspondent to The Times at Madrid, gives, in his “French History
of the Restoration of the Bourbons,” the account of this coup in the
General’s own words; for, favoured by the soldiers’ friendship, Mr.
Houghton had the opportunity of hearing the story first-hand, and the
smart General, looking spruce and trim in his well-cut black frock,
would often talk to the Englishman, when he met him in the salons of
Madrid, of the way he took matters into his own hand when the
republican Parliament could not manage the Congress.
“No, no,” said the former Governor of Madrid, “I admitted nobody
into my counsel, but, under the stress of circumstances, I took all the
responsibility upon myself. When I heard how the Assembly had
given voice to a vote of want of confidence in Castelar, I thought the
hour had come; and as the session the next day increased in force
and disorder, whilst the hours of early dawn succeeded those of the
evening and the night in fruitless and violent discussion, I called a
company of the Civil Guard, and another of the Cazadores, and, to
their surprise, I led them to the square in front of the Congress, and
stationed them all round the building. Then, entering the Parliament
with a few picked men, I surprised the deputies by ordering them to
leave the House. A few shots were fired in the corridor on those who
sought to defy the military order, so the members did not long resist,
and by four o’clock in the morning I found myself in complete
command of the House. I called a Committee, with the power to form
a Ministry, of which General Serrano was once more elected
President, and thus ensued the second period of the republic.”
This brilliant and successful coup reminds one of that of our
Oliver Cromwell when he freed the country of a particular
Government; but in this case of military sway in Spain General Pavia
acted from no aims of self-interest, but only for the restoration of
order, which it was his duty as Governor of the city to preserve.
During the second period of the republic, which lasted from
January 4, 1874, till December 30 of the same year, Serrano had his
hands weighted with two civil wars—the never-ceasing one of
Carlism in the Peninsula, as well as that of Cuba—and, as Francisco
Paréja de Alarcon says, in the criticism which he publishes in the
above-mentioned work on this period, the Government formed under
Serrano proved unable to restore order and save Spain from the
dishonour which was threatening it.
So when the Ministers heard of the rising at Sagunto, on
December 29, 1874, for the restoration of the monarchy, they knew
that the movement was really supported by leading military men,
who had been inspired thereto by the ladies of the land, who
resented the irreligion and disorder of the republic; and, as they saw
that resistance would only lead to another disastrous civil war, they
resigned their posts peacefully.
It was thus that the son of Isabella II. was raised to the throne.
And Alarcon says: “The hypocritical banner of ‘the country’s honour’
was set aside; for had it not meant the support of a foreign
monarchy, destitute of prestige; and then an unbridled, antisocial,
impious, and anarchical republic, which was a blot on the history of
our unhappy Spain in these latter days, which have been so full of
misfortunes under the government of the ambitious parties which
harrowed and exploited under different names and banners?”
The Circulo Hispano Ultramarino in Barcelona, agitating
continually for the restoration of Alfonso XII., was a strong agent in
the monarchical movement. Figuerola Ferretti worked strenuously as
secretary of the society, and this officer is the possessor of the only
escutcheon signed by Alfonso XII., in which he paid tribute to the
Colonel’s valiant conduct in the Cuban War of 1872.
It is interesting to see that the opinion of the republic published in
“Contemporaneous Truths” by this Ferretti was echoed by the great
leader of the party himself, for Señor Castelar writes: “There were
days during that summer of 1874 in which our Spain seemed
completely ruined. The idea of legality was so lost that anybody
could assume power, and notify the fact to the Cortes, and those
whose office it was to make and keep the laws were in a perpetual
ferment against them.
“It was no question then, as before, of one Ministry replacing
another, nor one form of government substituting another; but a
country was divided into a thousand parts, like the Kalifat of Cordova
after its fall, and the provinces were inundated by the most out-of-
the-way ideas and principles.”
When the great republican speaks in such a derogatory way of
the republic of which he was the leader, it is not strange that public
opinion turned to the restoration of the Bourbons as the salvation of
the country. Society clamoured for such balls and entertainments as
had formerly taken place at Court, or which had been patronized by
the palace, and the dreary disorder wearied both politicians and
patriots.
The house of the Dukes of Heredia-Spinola never ceased to be
the scene of the reunion of Alfonsists, and as General Martinez
Campos played his daily game of tresillo at their table, many
expressions of hope for the return of the ex-Queen’s son fell upon
his ears; whilst the Countess of Tacon, who had been Lady-in-
Waiting to the little Prince of Asturias as a child, was loud in her
opinions. It is interesting to note that this lady subsequently filled the
same office for the restored King’s little daughter, the Princess of
Asturias, Doña Maria de las Mercedes.
From a social point of view the salon of the old Countess of
Montijo ranked foremost in Madrid, and it assembled within its walls
the frequenters of Court society in the reign of Isabella. Scenes from
“Don Quixote” were given with great success at the Countess’s little
theatre; and the year of the restoration was marked by a very
successful dramatic representation, in which some of the members
of the old nobility took part.
Moreover, the services held every Friday in the private chapel of
the mansion, where great preachers made remarkable orations,
were a protest against the irreligion of the period. On these
occasions ladies of Court society, among whom may be noted Clara
Hunt, wife of one of the diplomats of the English Embassy—who was
quite a notable singer—gave proofs of their talent.
The niece of the Count of Nava de Tajo was another of the
distinguished ladies who frequented the salon of the Countess of
Montijo. The Count was varied in his interests. One afternoon he
paid a series of visits, beginning with the Pope’s Nuncio, going on to
the house of Canovas, then to Roque Barcia, who was asking for
subscriptions for his famous dictionary, and ending with the unhappy
Lopez Bago, who was seeking support for his Review of the Salons,
of which only three or four numbers were ever published.
CHAPTER XV
THE REVIVAL OF COURT LIFE IN SPAIN UNDER ALFONSO XII.
1874–1884
The foregoing brief sketch of the political and social life in Spain
during the republic will have given some idea of the joy which filled
Spanish hearts at seeing the Bourbons once more on the throne of
Spain in the person of Alfonso XII. Madrid indeed was wild with joy
when the little Prince whom we saw at eleven years of age, in his
blue velvet suit and lace collar, leaving his country as an exile, with
his mother and family, re-entered the royal palace as a young man
eighteen years old in January, 1875, having wisely passed through
Catalonia, which Martinez Campos had gained over to the cause,
and pleased the people by saying: “I wish to be King of all
Spaniards.”
As Isabella had abdicated in favour of her son on June 26, 1870,
there was no impediment to his taking the oath of coronation soon
after he was summoned to the Spanish capital. Of a good figure,
gentlemanly, and well cultured, Alfonso added the art of good
dressing to his other attractions, and the excellent taste and cut of
his clothes led to his being called “the Beau Brummell of Spain.”
K I N G A L F O N S O X I I . V I S I T I N G C H O L E R A PAT I E N T S AT
ARANJUEZ
D O N C A R L O S , P R I N C E O F A S T U R I A S , A N D H I S L AT E W I F E , T H E
I N FA N TA M E R C E D E S
It was in 1882 the King and Queen paid a visit to the Duke and
Duchess of Montpensier at their beautiful Palace of Sanlucar de
Barrameda, and the Queen won the hearts of her host and hostess
by her charming manners and the admiration with which she always
spoke of their daughter, the late wife of Alfonso.
On November 12, 1882, the Infanta Maria Teresa was born, and
two days later she was baptized with the customary ceremony.
On April 2, 1883, the King’s sister, Doña de la Paz, was married
very quietly to Prince Lewis Ferdinand of Bavaria. The Prince is a
very able surgeon, and when he comes to Madrid he delights in
going to the military hospital and exhibiting his scientific skill on
some soldier-patient.
The newly wedded pair laid the foundation-stone of the Cathedral
of the Almudena, and, according to the custom, the Princess de la
Paz placed in the casket a poem from her own pen to the Virgin of
the Almudena. The departure of the Infanta de la Paz left the Infanta
Eulalia with no companion in her musical and artistic tastes, for the
sisters had worked, played, painted, and poetized, together.
In September, 1883, Alfonso XII. went to France and Germany.
True to his old friends, the King went to see the Warden of the
Teresian College at his private house. As he was not at home,
Alfonso asked for a pencil and paper to write him a note, which he
handed to the servant. When she saw that the letter ran,
she fell on her knees and entreated forgiveness for her stupidity in
having asked the royal visitor into the kitchen.
But Alfonso, with his usual kindness, expressed interest in this,
the first kitchen he had ever seen. He asked many questions about
the utensils, and showed great curiosity about the use of a ceramic
vessel, which, according to the description he subsequently gave
and the sketch he made of it to show the Court officials, proved to be
an egg-poacher.
The enthusiastic reception accorded to Alfonso at Homburg
excited the ire of the French, and so antagonistic was the exhibition
of public feeling as the young King was crossing Paris alone that he
informed the President of the Republic that he would recall his
Ambassador at once. This prompt act brought the necessary
apology, and the King of Spain subsequently attended the banquet
given in his honour at the Elysée, at which the Minister of War was
absent, as the President of France had asked him to send in his
resignation.
The news of this contretemps reached Spain, and when the
Queen returned from La Granja to Madrid she was at first quite
alarmed at the enthusiasm shown by the people at the station. She
clasped her children to her breast, and seemed to think she was on
the brink of a revolution. But her fears were soon stilled when
somebody shouted: “Señora, the Spanish people are only protesting
against the recent events in Paris.”
The return of the King from France saw an ovation of equal
enthusiasm, and, in defiance of all Court etiquette, the people
pressed up the staircases and into the galleries of the palace, crying:
“Viva el Rey y la Reina!”
It was on Maunday Thursday, 1884, that the Court went for the
last time in state to make the customary visits on foot to the chief
churches of the capital. There was the usual service in the morning
in the chapel of the palace, the washing of the beggars’ feet and
feeding them,[21] and the solemn, imposing public procession at
three o’clock in the afternoon. The streets were strewed with tan to
soften the cobbled stones to the feet of the ladies, whose high-
heeled velvet shoes rather impeded their walk. The streets were
lined with troops, and the Plazas de Oriente, Mayor, and La
Encarnacion, were respectively filled with the regiment of the
Princess of Pavia and the artillery.
[21] This ceremony is described on pp. 332-4.
“Nobody,” says the writer in this appeal, “has the courage to warn
you of the impending evil. When the doctors order you change of
climate, the Government opposes the course for reasons of State.
‘Reasons of State’ imperil the life of a man! And a man to whom we
owe so much!
“Therefore, even as a republican, I beg you, as the occupier of
the throne, to look to your health, if it be only to overthrow some
iniquitous plan, or some unworthy object which is contingent on your
illness; and if scientists think it well for you to pass the winter in
some other place in Spain, or abroad, follow their counsel, and not
that of interested politicians, in sacrificing your life to their ambitions.”
It was certainly true that the King was overborne by the intrigues
of the politicians in the palace. Even in such a little social matter as
that of wishing to go in costume to a fancy ball, the King could not
have his own way, for Canovas showed such aversion to Alfonso
donning fancy attire for the occasion that he had to abandon the idea
and wear his ordinary dress.
If such influence had been used to the prevention of the King
favouring a danseuse like Elena Sanz, which brought so much
sorrow and so many complications in the Royal Family, his life might
certainly have been prolonged. It was true that the doctors advised
the King’s wintering in Andalusia, but “State reasons” led to the
failing Sovereign being exposed to the colder climate and sharp
winds of the Palace of the Pardo, where politicians could use their
influence with the invalid, and remind him continually that he alone
was the arbiter of parties.
Alfonso was only twenty-seven years of age when he felt he was
doomed to an early death; but his natural energy led him to take
horse exercise, despatch business with his Ministers every day, and,
in spite of daily increasing weakness, to do as much as possible.
If his longing for the sea-breezes of San Sebastian had been
gratified, his life might have been prolonged; but politicians gave little
heed to the plea, and their authority was paramount.
On November 24, 1894, the royal invalid was seized with
faintness when he came in from a walk. Queen Maria Cristina,
Queen Isabella, and the Duchess of Montpensier, were called to his
side. Seeing his wife by him when he recovered consciousness, the
King embraced her, and the alarming symptoms vanished for a time;
but the following day he was seized with another fainting fit, which
proved fatal.
We read in La Ilustracion Española of this date, that when Queen
Maria Cristina was told by Dr. Riedel that all was over, she fell
weeping at the head of the bed of her unhappy husband, whilst
covering his hand with kisses.
D E AT H O F A L F O N S O X I I .