United States Tax Court

T.C. Memo. 2023-65

RONALD SCHLAPFER,

Petitioner

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent

—————

Docket No. 419-20. Filed May 22, 2023.

—————

Scott D. Michel, Ross R. Sharkey, Christopher S. Rizek, and Jeffrey S. 

Stephens, for petitioner.

Blake J. Corry, William Benjamin McClendon, and Randall S. Trebat,

for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUCH, Judge: This case is before the Court on Cross-Motions for 

Summary Judgment. Ronald Schlapfer was the policyholder of a life 

insurance policy issued in 2006. The policy was funded by stock and cash 

from European Marketing Group, Inc. (EMG), an entity solely owned by 

Mr. Schlapfer. Mr. Schlapfer assigned ownership of the policy to his 

mother, aunt, and uncle.

In 2013, Mr. Schlapfer submitted a disclosure packet to the 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program

(OVDP). In this packet, he included a gift tax return for 2006 that 

informed the IRS that he had made gifts of EMG stock to his mother, 

aunt, and uncle. The IRS concluded that he made the gifts in 2007, not 

2006, and that because he failed to file a gift tax return for that year, he

did not adequately disclose the gift to commence the period of limitations 

on assessment. 

Served 05/22/23
2

[*2] The Commissioner generally has three years from the filing of a 

gift tax return to assess additional tax. If no return is filed, or if the gift 

is not adequately disclosed on or with the gift tax return, then the 

Commissioner may assess at any time. But the adequate disclosure of a 

completed gift on a gift tax return will commence the running of the 

period of limitations for assessment of gift tax on the transfer even if the 

transfer is ultimately determined to be an incomplete gift.

Mr. Schlapfer adequately disclosed the gift on his 2006 gift tax 

return. The documents he attached to, and referenced in, his return

provided the Commissioner with enough information to satisfy adequate 

disclosure. Therefore, the period of limitations to assess the gift tax

commenced when the return was filed; and because the Commissioner 

issued the notice of deficiency more than three years after the filing, the 

Commissioner is barred from assessing gift tax.

Background

Ronald Schlapfer has ties to both the United States and 

Switzerland. He was born in Switzerland in 1950 and remained there 

until 1978. While in Switzerland, he began a career in banking and 

finance, working at Bank Vontobel and then Citibank. In 1979 he moved 

to the United States with his first wife, whom he met while working in 

Tokyo. He moved to the United States to continue his career at Citibank. 

Through Citibank, Mr. Schlapfer obtained a nonimmigrant visa, which 

required a declaration that he did not intend to permanently reside in 

the United States. He later obtained a U.S. green card. Other than his 

wife, Mr. Schlapfer’s immediate family, which included his mother, 

brother, aunt, and uncle, remained in Switzerland. 

Mr. Schlapfer and his first wife had two daughters, who were born 

in 1979 and 1981. They all lived together in the United States until 1989 

when Mr. Schlapfer and his first wife divorced. Thereafter, his first wife 

and their two daughters moved to Switzerland. His daughters returned 

to the United States in the mid-1990s for school.

Mr. Schlapfer married his current wife, Linda Schlapfer (Mrs. 

Schlapfer), in 1990. Like Mr. Schlapfer, she had been married

previously. She and her first husband moved to the United States in 

1978 and had a daughter in 1979. They divorced in the late 1980s. Mrs. 

Schlapfer married Mr. Schlapfer in 1990, and they had a son together in 

1992.
3

[*3] After leaving Citibank in 1998, Mr. Schlapfer started his own 

businesses. First, he started a currency trading company in the United 

States called Tradex. Then in 2002, he formed EMG. EMG was a 

Panamanian corporation that managed investments, holding

marketable securities and cash. Mr. Schlapfer owned all of its issued 

and outstanding shares (namely, 100 shares of common stock). 

On May 18, 2007, Mr. Schlapfer applied for U.S. citizenship, and 

in 2008 he became a U.S. citizen. 

I. The Life Insurance Policy

On July 7, 2006, Mr. Schlapfer applied for a LifeBridge Universal 

Variable Life Policy (UVL Policy) offered by swisspartners Insurance 

Company SPC Ltd. (Swisspartners). Mr. Schlapfer’s stated purpose for 

doing so was to create and fund a policy that his mother, aunt, and uncle 

could use to benefit his nephews, whose dad (Mr. Schlapfer’s brother) 

had died in 1994. The application listed Mr. Schlapfer as the 

policyholder, his mother, aunt, and uncle as the insured lives, Mr. 

Schlapfer and Mrs. Schlapfer as the primary beneficiaries, and Mr. 

Schlapfer’s three children and stepchild as the secondary beneficiaries. 

It also indicated that AIG Private Bank, Zurich (AIG) had been selected 

as custodian, meaning policy assets would be held there. On September 

22, 2006, UVL Policy No. XXX-X03-06 was issued bearing the same 

policyholder, insured lives, primary and secondary beneficiaries, and 

custodian as requested in the application. 

Mr. Schlapfer funded the UVL Policy premium with $50,0001 and

100 shares of EMG.2 The assets were held in an account at AIG titled 

“swisspartners Insurance Company SPC Ltd. Rubric: XXX-X03-06” (AIG 

Account). The initial premium payment was made on August 21, 2006,

when EMG transferred $50,000 to the AIG Account. The next premium

payment was made on September 22, 2006, when EMG issued a share 

certificate showing the AIG Account as the owner of all 100 shares of 

1 All monetary amounts are shown in U.S. dollars and rounded to the nearest 

dollar. Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue 

Code, Title 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C.), in effect at all relevant times, all regulation references 

are to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect at all relevant 

times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 

2 Shares of an entity called FX Funds, Ltd., were also contributed to the UVL

Policy. However, because FX Funds is a dormant entity with no assets, those shares 

are not relevant. 
4

[*4] EMG stock. Those shares were transferred to the AIG Account on 

November 8, 2006. 

Mr. Schlapfer eventually substituted his mother, aunt, and uncle 

for himself as the policyholders. On January 23, 2007, Mr. Schlapfer

initially requested that Swisspartners assign the policy to his mother as

the policyholder with immediate effect. The next day, his mother signed 

a revised term sheet that made her the policyholder. Then on April 23, 

2007, Mr. Schlapfer and his mother jointly requested that Swisspartners 

assign the policy so that Mr. Schlapfer’s mother, aunt, and uncle would 

be joint policyholders. They also requested that the beneficiary 

designations be made irrevocable. These changes were executed on May 

31, 2007. All other terms of the policy remained the same.

II. The Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program

In 2012, Mr. Schlapfer entered into the OVDP. The OVDP

“offered U.S. taxpayers with undisclosed income from offshore assets a

compliance avenue to resolve income tax liabilities” and “tax 

information reporting obligations.” See Internal Revenue Manual

4.63.3.1 (Apr. 27, 2021). When disclosing assets, the OVDP required that 

taxpayers disregard all entities through which undisclosed assets were 

held. It also required taxpayers to pay all tax, interest, and penalties 

related to undisclosed assets during the most recent eight years, 

regardless of the statute of limitations. See I.R.S., Offshore Voluntary 

Disclosure Program Frequently Asked Questions and Answers 2012, Q7, 

Q9, Q42, https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/

offshore-voluntary-disclosure-program-frequently-asked-questionsand-answers-2012 (last updated June 27, 2021).

On November 20, 2013, Mr. Schlapfer, through counsel, 

submitted a disclosure packet to participate in the OVDP. The 

submission included the following items:

• Original Forms 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for tax 

years 2004 through 2009;

• Forms 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 

tax years 2004 through 2009;

• Forms CT–1040, Connecticut Resident Income Tax Return, and 

Forms CT–1040X, Amended Connecticut Income Tax Return for 

Individuals, for tax years 2004 through 2009; 
5

[*5]

• Forms 5471, Information Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to 

Certain Foreign Corporations;

• Form 709, United States Gift (and Generation-Skipping Transfer)

Tax Return, for 2006;3

• Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBARs) for tax 

years 2004 through 2009;

• Bank Statements;

• Foreign Account or Asset Statements; 

• A completed Penalty Computation Worksheet; 

• A copy of OVDI Prepayment Check No. 2318 to the Department 

of the Treasury for $6 million for tax years 2004 through 2011;

• Consents, (i) Form 872, Consent to Extend the Time to Assess

Tax, and (ii) Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Civil Penalties 

Provided by 31 U.S.C. § 5321 for FBAR Violations; 

• An Offshore Entity Statement;

• An Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Letter with Required 

Attachments; and

• Copies of Forms 2848, Power of Attorney and Declaration of 

Representative, for Ronald Schlapfer and Linda Schlapfer.

With this submission, Mr. Schlapfer attempted to comply with 

applicable U.S. tax laws. For 2004, 2005, and 2006, he provided 

amended income tax returns that included Forms 5471 for EMG. Those 

forms provided information regarding the number and type of issued 

and outstanding shares, the number of shares held by Mr. Schlapfer, 

and EMG’s income statement, balance sheet, and earnings and profits 

for the respective tax years. Mr. Schlapfer also provided an Offshore 

Entity Statement detailing his control over EMG, which stated:

EMG was established by the Taxpayer in 2003, and was 

beneficially owned by the Taxpayer until July 6, 2006, at 

3 The gift tax return was attached to Mr. Schlapfer’s 2006 amended return.
6 

which time the Taxpayer gifted his entire interest in EMG 

to his mother. The Taxpayer is taking into account all of 

the income earned by the accounts underlying EMG in the 

enclosed Amended U.S. Individual Tax Returns during the 

years he controlled and beneficially owned EMG.

Mr. Schlapfer also included a Form 709 for 2006 with his 

submission. Attached to the Form 709 was a protective filing that stated: 

A PROTECTIVE FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED. ON 

JULY 6, 2006, TAXPAYER MADE A GIFT OF 

CONTROLLED FOREIGN COMPANY STOCK VALUED 

AT $6,056,686. 

PER U.S. TREASURY REGULATION 25.2501-1(B), THE 

TAXPAYER IS NOT SUBJECT TO U.S. GIFT TAX AS HE 

DID NOT INTEND TO RESIDE PERMANENTLY IN THE 

UNITED STATES UNTIL CITIZENSHIP WAS 

OBTAINED IN 2008. 

This gift stemmed from Mr. Schlapfer’s assignment of the UVL Policy.

He reported the gift as stock rather than the UVL Policy because the 

2012 OVDP instructions required taxpayers to disregard certain entities

that hold underlying assets, and he believed the policy was such an 

entity.4 He also contends that he prepared the 2006 gift tax return in 

accordance with the investor control doctrine. The Commissioner does 

not dispute that Mr. Schlapfer filed a gift tax return for 2006 when he 

submitted the disclosure packet to the OVDP. 

On June 4, 2014, after reviewing the 2006 gift tax return in Mr. 

Schlapfer’s OVDP submission, an IRS revenue agent issued him an 

information document request (IDR). The IDR asked Mr. Schlapfer to 

provide documentation (1) of the gift of EMG to his mother, including 

the transfer of ownership of the entity as well as the transfer of the 

ownership of foreign accounts related to the entity, and (2) to 

substantiate his claim that in 2006 he did not have an intent to remain 

in the country and is therefore exempt from paying gift tax. 

4 The Commissioner does not consider a life insurance policy an “entity” as 

defined under the 2012 OVDP instructions.

[*6]
7

[*7] Mr. Schlapfer promptly responded. He provided the following 

documents to show the transfer of his entire ownership interest in EMG 

to the AIG Account:

(1) a copy of the September 22, 2006, share certificate showing 

the AIG Account as the owner of all issued and outstanding

shares in EMG;

(2) a copy of an AIG statement dated August 8, 2006, showing the 

initial premium payment of $50,000 to the AIG Account;

(3) a copy of an AIG statement showing EMG’s portfolio valuation 

as of September 22, 2006; and

(4) a copy of the Bearer Share of FX Fund, Ltd., which was held 

in the AIG Account.

He provided the following additional documents to show that he made a 

gift to his mother: 

(5) a copy of the updated UVL Policy term sheet signed by his 

mother on January 24, 2007;

(6) a copy of Mr. Schlapfer’s signed instructions to Swisspartners

to change the policyholder of the UVL Policy to his mother; 

and 

(7) copies of the UVL Policy chart.

In addition to providing these documents, with his response Mr. 

Schlapfer explained his position as to the date of the gift transfer. He

asserted that the gift was made on July 6, 2006, when he instructed 

Swisspartners to transfer ownership of the UVL Policy to his mother, 

aunt, and uncle as soon as the policy was issued. However, he also 

agreed to a revised gift date of September 22, 2006, the date the policy 

was issued. He explained that Swisspartners’ naming him as a 

policyholder was a scrivener’s error, and that the requests made in 

January and April 2007 were merely intended to correct that error. After 

his initial response to the IDR, Mr. Schlapfer quickly followed up with

documents to substantiate his claim that he did not intend to remain in 
8

[*8] the United States, in the form of affidavits from family members 

and business partners, in July 2014.5

Following his response to the IDR, the IRS had little contact with

Mr. Schlapfer about his 2006 gift tax return until 2016, when it opened

an examination of the return. On January 6, 2016, an IRS estate tax 

attorney notified Mr. Schlapfer of the examination and requested to 

meet with him to discuss his claim of nondomiciliary status in the 

United States for 2006. On May 17, 2016, an IRS estate tax attorney 

interviewed Mr. Schlapfer. Although most of the questions related to 

Mr. Schlapfer’s domicile, there were also questions regarding the nature 

of the gift, when it was made, and the reported value of the gift. On June 

14, 2016, Mr. Schlapfer signed a Form 872 for his 2006 gift tax return. 

He agreed to extend the time to assess tax to November 30, 2017. 

In August 2016, the IRS issued Mr. Schlapfer a Form 3233, 

Report of Gift Tax Examination, for his 2006 gift tax return. In that 

report, the IRS concluded that there was no taxable gift in 2006 because 

Mr. Schlapfer made an incomplete transfer. It explained that because 

Mr. Schlapfer failed to relinquish dominion and control of the UVL 

Policy as the policyholder until May 31, 2007, the gift was not completed

in 2006. Because Mr. Schlapfer refused to concede that the gift was 

made in 2007, he was given the choice to opt out of or be removed from 

the OVDP. He withdrew. 

After Mr. Schlapfer formally withdrew from the OVDP, the 

Commissioner prepared a substitute gift tax return for 2007 pursuant 

to section 6020(b). On October 17, 2019, the Commissioner issued Mr. 

Schlapfer a notice of deficiency for 2007 determining a gift tax liability 

of $4,429,949, and additions to tax under section 6651(a)(2) and (f) of 

$4,319,200. While residing in Florida, Mr. Schlapfer filed a Petition

challenging the Commissioner’s determinations. 

The Commissioner filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asking 

the Court to find as a matter of law that (1) Mr. Schlapfer made a taxable 

gift of an insurance policy in 2007 and (2) that he is liable for additions 

to tax under section 6651(f), or in the alternative section 6651(a)(1) and 

(2). Mr. Schlapfer filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment asking 

the Court to find as a matter of law that the Commissioner’s period of 

limitation to assess the gift tax expired before the notice of deficiency

5 For purposes of this Opinion, we need not resolve Mr. Schlapfer’s domiciliary

status. 
9

[*9] was issued because Mr. Schlapfer adequately disclosed the gift on 

his 2006 gift tax return. Mr. Schlapfer supplemented his Motion, and 

the Commissioner responded to the Supplement.

Discussion

Before the Court are the parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary 

Judgment. We are asked to decide whether the period of limitations to 

assess the 2007 gift tax expired before the Commissioner issued the 

notice of deficiency. To answer this question, we must decide whether 

Mr. Schlapfer adequately disclosed his gift on his gift tax return. 

I. Summary Judgment Standard 

We may grant summary judgment when there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and a decision may be rendered as a 

matter of law. Rule 121(a)(2); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 

T.C. 518, 520 (1992), aff’d, 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). The moving party 

bears the burden of showing that there is no genuine dispute as to any 

material fact. Sundstrand Corp., 98 T.C. at 520. When a motion for 

summary judgment is properly made and supported, an opposing party 

may not rest on mere allegations or denials. Rule 121(d). Rather, the 

party’s response, by affidavits or declarations, or as otherwise provided 

in Rule 121, must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine 

factual dispute for trial. Id. In deciding whether to grant summary 

judgment, we view the facts and make inferences in the light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party. Sundstrand Corp., 98 T.C. at 520. 

II. Gift Tax

Section 2501(a)(1) imposes a tax on the transfer of property by 

gift. A gift is generally defined as any transaction where property is

gratuitously passed to or conferred upon another for less than full and 

adequate consideration. I.R.C. § 2512(b); Treas. Reg. § 25.2511-1(c)(1). 

The amount of tax imposed is based on the value of the property 

transferred on the date the gift is complete.6 I.R.C. § 2512(a); Treas. Reg. 

§ 25.2511-2(a). The gift tax applies to a transfer regardless of whether 

the gift is direct or indirect, whether the property is real or personal, 

whether the property is tangible or intangible, or whether the transfer 

is in a trust or otherwise. I.R.C. § 2511(a). Individuals subject to the gift 

6 Treasury Regulation § 25.2511-2(b) provides that the transfer of property is 

not a complete gift unless the donor parts with dominion and control over the property 

with no power to change its disposition.
10

[*10] tax who make a transfer by gift must file a gift tax return, Form 

709, for the year the transfer is made. I.R.C. § 6019; Treas. Reg. 

§ 25.2501-1(a)(1).

Mr. Schlapfer filed Form 709 for 2006 on which he reported a 

transfer of stock by gift, but the Commissioner disagrees as to the 

characterization of the transferred property (EMG stock vs. UVL Policy) 

and the timing of the transfer (2006 vs. 2007). For purposes of this 

Opinion, we make no determination as to whether the gift is the EMG 

stock or the UVL Policy. We will analyze the applicable law under both.

Additionally, for reasons discussed below, the timing issue is 

immaterial. 

III. Statute of Limitations for Gift Tax Assessment 

Subject to various exceptions, the Commissioner generally has 

three years after a gift tax return is filed to assess any gift tax. I.R.C. 

§ 6501(a), (c); Estate of Brown v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-50, at 

*8–9. Section 6501(c)(9) provides an exception for certain gifts not shown 

on returns. It provides that the Commissioner may assess gift tax at any 

time for any gift of property, the value of which is required to be shown 

on a gift tax return and is not shown on such a return. I.R.C. § 6501(c)(9).

This exception applies unless the gift has otherwise been “disclosed in 

such return, or in a statement attached to the return, in a manner 

adequate to apprise the Secretary of the nature of such item.” Id.; Treas. 

Reg. § 301.6501(c)-1(f)(1). If a gift has been adequately disclosed on the 

gift tax return, or a statement attached to the return, that was filed for

the year the transfer occurred, then the ordinary three-year period for 

assessment commences upon filing. I.R.C. § 6501(c)(9); Treas. Reg. 

§ 301.6501(c)-1(f)(1) and (2). 

This is true even if the gift disclosed is ultimately determined to 

be an incomplete transfer under Treasury Regulation § 25.2511-2 so 

long as there was adequate disclosure. Treasury Regulation 

§ 301.6501(c)-1(f)(5) provides that 

[a]dequate disclosure of a transfer that is reported as a 

completed gift on the gift tax return will commence the 

running of the period of limitations for assessment of gift 

tax on the transfer, even if the transfer is ultimately 

determined to be an incomplete gift for purposes of 

§ 25.2511-2 . . . . For example, if an incomplete gift is 

reported as a completed gift on the gift tax return and is 
11

adequately disclosed, the period for assessment of the gift 

tax will begin to run when the return is filed . . . . 

(Emphasis added.) Hence, under this Treasury regulation, for purposes 

of commencing the period of limitations, the focus is on when the 

transfer was reported, not when the transfer was completed.

Here we will focus on whether Mr. Schlapfer adequately disclosed 

the gift transfer reported on his 2006 gift tax return. The Commissioner 

determined that the gift transfer was completed in 2007, and his notice 

is predicated on that determination. However, when the transfer was 

completed is immaterial. Even if we were to decide that the gift was 

completed in 2007, Mr. Schlapfer’s adequate disclosure of the gift on his 

2006 return would suffice to commence the three-year period of 

limitations upon the filing of that return. See Treas. Reg. § 301.6501(c)-

1(f)(5).

IV. Adequate Disclosure

“A disclosure is ‘adequate’ if it is ‘sufficiently detailed to alert the 

Commissioner and his agents as to the nature of the transaction so that 

the decision as to whether to select the return for audit may be a 

reasonably informed one.’” Thiessen v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 100, 114

(2016) (quoting Estate of Fry v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1020, 1023 

(1987)). The Commissioner directs us to the reporting requirements for 

strict compliance. See, e.g., Treas. Reg. § 25.6019-4. But Treasury 

Regulation § 301.6501(c)-1(f)(2) provides that transfers reported on a 

gift tax return will be considered adequately disclosed if the return (or 

a statement attached to the return) provides the following information:

(i) A description of the transferred property 

and any consideration received by the transferor;

(ii) The identity of, and relationship between, 

the transferor and each transferee; 

(iii) If the property is transferred in trust, the 

trust’s tax identification number and a brief 

description of the terms of the trust, or in lieu of a 

brief description of the trust terms, a copy of the 

trust instrument;

(iv) Except as provided in § 301.6501(c)-

1(f)(3), a detailed description of the method used to 

determine the fair market value of property 

transferred, including any financial data (for 

[*11]
12

example, balance sheets, etc. with explanations of 

any adjustments) that were utilized in determining 

the value of the interest, any restrictions on the 

transferred property that were considered in 

determining the fair market value of the property, 

and a description of any discounts, such as discounts 

for blockage, minority or fractional interests, and 

lack of marketability, claimed in valuing the 

property. . . . ; and

(v) A statement describing any position taken 

that is contrary to any proposed, temporary or final 

Treasury regulations or revenue rulings published 

at the time of the transfer . . . . 

These requirements can be satisfied by filing Form 709 with the 

required information, or if needed, an amended Form 709 with the 

required information. Rev. Proc. 2000-34, §§ 3 and 4, 2000-2 C.B. 186, 

186. However, if an amended return is the one that satisfies adequate 

disclosure, then the period of limitations commences with the filing of 

the amended return, not the original return. Id. 

Whether a statement attached to a gift tax return adequately 

discloses a gift is a question of fact. Estate of Hicks Sanders v. 

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-100, at *7. Mr. Schlapfer argues that

the period to assess gift tax has expired because he adequately disclosed 

the gift on his 2006 gift tax return. He points to four documents to 

support this claim: (1) the gift tax return; (2) a protective filing 

attachment; (3) Schedule F of Form 5471 for his 2006 tax return; and 

(4) the Offshore Entity Statement. The Commissioner argues that the 

period to assess gift tax did not expire because Mr. Schlapfer did not 

adequately disclose the gift. Specifically, he asserts that (1) the Offshore 

Entity Statement is not part of the 2006 gift tax return and it should not 

be considered to determine whether Mr. Schlapfer made an adequate 

disclosure of the gift; and (2) even if the Offshore Entity Statement is 

considered, Mr. Schlapfer still failed to adequately disclose the gift 

because he failed to satisfy all applicable requirements of Treasury 

Regulation § 301.6501(c)-1(f)(2). 

A. Disclosure Contents We Can Consider

The Commissioner argues that the Offshore Entity Statement is 

not among the documents we should consider in determining whether 

the gift was adequately disclosed. We disagree. 

[*12]
13

[*13] We have addressed the question of what documents to consider

for adequate disclosure in cases interpreting section 6501(e)(1) 

(regarding substantial income omissions), and we find that the rationale

used in those cases applies with equal force here. Under section 

6501(c)(9), the Commissioner may assess a gift tax at any time if a gift 

is not shown on a return unless the gift is “disclosed in such return, or 

in a statement attached to the return, in a manner adequate to apprise 

the Secretary of the nature of such item.” (Emphasis added.) Section 

6501(e)(1)(B)(iii) has similar wording, providing that the period of 

limitations for the Commissioner to determine the amount omitted from 

gross income will extend to six years unless “such amount is disclosed in 

the return, or in a statement attached to the return, in a manner adequate 

to apprise the Secretary of the nature and amount of such item.” 

(Emphasis added.) “Where the same word or phrase appears multiple 

times within a statutory text, it is generally presumed to have the same 

meaning each place it appears.” Whistleblower 22716-13W v. 

Commissioner, 146 T.C. 84, 92–93 (2016) (citing Atl. Cleaners & Dyers, 

Inc. v. United States, 286 U.S. 427, 433 (1932) (“Undoubtedly, there is a 

natural presumption that identical words used in different parts of the 

same act are intended to have the same meaning.”)). A review of 

applicable IRS guidance and a plain reading of the statute do not 

warrant a conclusion that Congress intended the similar phrases in 

section 6501(c)(9) and (e)(1) to be interpreted differently. Therefore, we 

look to adequate disclosure caselaw decided under section 6501(e)(1) for 

guidance in determining what documents can be used to prove adequate 

disclosure under section 6501(c)(9). 

This Court has frequently looked beyond a taxpayer’s return for 

purposes of determining adequate disclosure, especially where the 

return references a separate document. See Reuter v. Commissioner, 

T.C. Memo. 1985-607, 51 T.C.M. (CCH) 99, 102 (discussing Benderoff v. 

United States, 398 F.2d 132 (8th Cir. 1968), Walker v. Commissioner, 46 

T.C. 630 (1966), Roschuni v. Commissioner, 44 T.C. 80 (1965), and Rose 

v. Commissioner, 24 T.C. 755 (1955)). For example, when the taxpayer’s 

individual return references an information return (such as a 

partnership or S corporation return), we may look to those information 

returns to determine whether items were adequately disclosed. See

Reuter, 51 T.C.M. (CCH) at 102. When deciding whether an item has 

been adequately disclosed, we may consider not only a return, but also 

documents attached to the return plus informational documents 

referenced in the return. 
14

[*14] The Offshore Entity Statement provided with the gift tax return 

must be considered in determining adequate disclosure. It was 

submitted to the OVDP in a disclosure packet that included the gift tax 

return. Furthermore, the protective filing attached to the gift tax return 

referenced controlled foreign company (CFC) stock, which alerted the 

IRS to look to the Offshore Entity Statement for information on the gift 

referred to in the gift tax return. We will consider the return and all 

documents accompanying the return. Therefore, the documents we will 

consider in determining whether Mr. Schlapfer adequately disclosed the 

gift are the gift tax return, the protective filing, all relevant Forms 5471, 

and the Offshore Entity Statement.

B. Strict vs. Substantial Compliance

The Commissioner argues that Mr. Schlapfer did not adequately 

disclose the gift because he failed to strictly satisfy all applicable 

requirements of Treasury Regulation § 301.6501(c)-1(f)(2). Mr. 

Schlapfer disagrees, arguing that he strictly, or at least substantially,

complied with all applicable requirements of the Treasury regulation. 

The Commissioner may insist that taxpayers strictly comply with 

regulatory requirements, but in certain circumstances we have held that

regulatory requirements can be satisfied by substantial compliance. See, 

e.g., Am. Air Filter Co. v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 709, 719 (1983). The 

question the Court must ask in determining whether to apply 

substantial or strict compliance to regulatory requirements is whether 

the requirements relate “to the substance or essence of the statute.” 

Bond v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 32, 41 (1993) (quoting Taylor v. 

Commissioner, 67 T.C. 1071, 1077 (1977)). If the requirement is 

essential, then strict adherence to all regulatory requirements is a 

precondition to satisfying the statute. Id. However, if the requirement 

is “procedural or directory in that [it is] not of the essence of the thing to 

be done . . . [it] may be fulfilled by substantial . . . compliance.” Id.

(quoting Taylor, 67 T.C. at 1077–78). This test requires us to examine 

section 6501(c)(9) to determine whether the adequate disclosure

requirements of Treasury Regulation § 301.6501(c)-1(f)(2) go to the 

essence of the statute or are merely procedural or directory. 

Section 6501(c)(9) provides that the Commissioner may assess a 

gift tax at any time if a taxpayer fails to report a gift on a gift tax return,

unless the gift is otherwise adequately disclosed on the return or a 

statement attached to it. Its essence is to provide the Commissioner with 

a viable way to identify gift tax returns that should be examined with 
15

[*15] minimum expenditure of resources. T.D. 8845, 1999-2 C.B. 683, 

684. The purpose of the adequate disclosure requirements in the 

regulation is to provide taxpayers with guidance on what constitutes 

adequate disclosure for purposes of section 6501(c)(9).

The Department of the Treasury has acknowledged that 

substantial compliance can satisfy the adequate disclosure 

requirements. In Treasury Decision 8845, which promulgated Treasury 

Regulation § 301.6501(c)-1(f), Treasury specifically addressed 

substantial compliance. It rejected a recommendation that the 

regulation should expressly allow substantial compliance because of 

“the difficulty in defining and illustrating what would constitute 

substantial compliance.” T.D. 8845, 1999-2 C.B at 685. It went on to 

note, however, that its rejection of the suggestion did not mean “that the 

absence of any particular item or items would necessarily preclude 

satisfaction of the regulatory requirements, depending on the nature of 

the item omitted and the overall adequacy of the information provided.” 

Id. That statement describes, and accepts, the very essence of 

substantial compliance. Therefore, we conclude that the adequate 

disclosure requirements can be satisfied by substantial compliance.7

C. Whether Mr. Schlapfer Strictly or Substantially Complied

With the Adequate Disclosure Requirements 

Under Treasury Regulation § 301.6501(c)-1(f)(2), a transfer will 

be considered adequately disclosed if the taxpayer provides the following 

information on a gift tax return or statement attached to it: (i) a 

description of the gift and consideration received for the gift; (ii) the 

identities of and relationship between the transferor and transferee; 

(iii) if the gift is transferred in trust, the trust tax identification number 

and a description of the terms of the trust; (iv) a detailed description of 

the method used to determine the fair market value of the gift; and (v) a 

statement describing any position taken that is contrary to Treasury 

regulations or revenue rulings published at the time of the transfer. 

Here, we need to decide only whether Mr. Schlapfer strictly or

substantially satisfied requirements (i), (ii), and (iv). A taxpayer will be 

7 Generally, “[s]tatutes of limitation sought to be applied to bar rights of the 

Government, must receive a strict construction in favor of the Government.” Badaracco 

v. Commissioner, 464 U.S. 386, 391 (1984) (quoting E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. 

Davis, 264 U.S. 456, 462 (1924)). However, we have applied the substantial compliance 

doctrine to situations where we are tasked in determining whether a return was 

sufficient to commence the running of the statute of limitations. See, e.g., Gen. Mfg. 

Corp. v. Commissioner, 44 T.C. 513, 523–24 (1965).
16

[*16] deemed to have substantially complied with a requirement if it is 

procedural and the taxpayer fulfilled all other essential purposes of the 

requirement. See Am. Air Filter Co., 81 T.C. at 719. Therefore, if Mr. 

Schlapfer fails to strictly comply with a requirement, we will find that 

he substantially complied with it if he has fulfilled all essential purposes 

of the requirement. We will look to the gift tax return, the protective 

filing, all relevant Forms 5471, and the Offshore Entity Statement to 

determine compliance.

1. Description of the Property and Consideration 

Received

Assuming the gift is the EMG stock, Mr. Schlapfer has strictly 

satisfied this requirement. Treasury Regulation § 301.6501(c)-1(f)(2)(i)

requires that Mr. Schlapfer’s gift tax return, or a statement attached to 

it, provide a description of the transferred property and any 

consideration he received.8 The 2006 Instructions for Form 709 

instructed taxpayers to “[d]escribe each gift in enough detail so that the 

property can be easily identified.” 2006 Instructions for Form 709, 

United States Gift (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return,

at 8. For stock, the instructions specify that the taxpayer should disclose 

the number of shares and identify whether they are common or 

preferred. Id. Mr. Schlapfer provided the required information via three

attachments: the protective filing, the Offshore Entity Statement, and 

the 2006 Form 5471. On the protective filing attached to the return, Mr. 

Schlapfer stated that he made a gift of CFC stock valued at $6,056,686.

On the Offshore Entity Statement, he stated that “EMG was established 

by the Taxpayer in 2003, and was beneficially owned by the Taxpayer 

until July 6, 2006, at which time the Taxpayer gifted his entire interest 

in EMG to his mother.” Lastly, on the 2006 Form 5471, he disclosed the 

number of and type of EMG shares. Together, these statements provided 

the IRS with a description of the property. 

However, if the gift is the UVL Policy, Mr. Schlapfer did not 

strictly satisfy this requirement. He did not provide any information on 

his gift tax return, or on documents attached to it, that directly 

referenced or described a transfer of a life insurance policy. But this 

failure does not preclude him from satisfying adequate disclosure. As 

previously mentioned, disclosure is adequate if it is sufficiently detailed 

to alert the Commissioner to the nature of the transaction so that the 

decision to select a return for audit is reasonably informed. Thiessen, 

8 Mr. Schlapfer transferred his shares of EMG stock for no consideration.
17

[*17] 146 T.C. at 114. And when finalizing the adequate disclosure 

regulations, Treasury provided “that the absence of any particular item 

or items would [not] necessarily preclude satisfaction of the regulatory 

requirements, depending on the nature of the item omitted and the 

overall adequacy of the information provided.” T.D. 8845, 1999-2 C.B 

at 685. Thus, these “regulatory requirements” are not actually required. 

A requirement does not have to be satisfied depending on the importance 

of the requirement and what information is provided by the taxpayer. 

Furthermore, the Treasury Regulations provide that “[a] transfer will 

be adequately disclosed . . . only if it is reported in a manner adequate 

to apprise the [IRS] of the nature of the gift . . . . Transfers reported on 

the gift tax return as transfers of property by gift will be considered 

adequately disclosed . . . if the return . . . provides the following 

information.” Treas. Reg. § 301.6501(c)-1(f)(2) (emphasis added). The 

difference between the wording used in these two sentences informs us 

that the requirements are not mandatory, but act as guidance to 

taxpayers to inform them on a way to satisfy adequate disclosure. Thus, 

we must determine whether Mr. Schlapfer’s description of the property 

transferred was sufficient to alert the Commissioner to the nature of the 

gift. 

Mr. Schlapfer provided enough information to satisfy this 

requirement through substantial compliance. While he may have failed 

to describe the gift in the correct way (assuming the gift is the UVL 

Policy), he did provide information to describe the underlying property 

that was transferred. Mr. Schlapfer asserts that he chose to disclose the 

assets held in the insurance policy instead of the actual policy because 

the OVDP required him to disregard entities holding foreign assets. The 

UVL Policy’s value comes primarily from EMG stock, so Mr. Schlapfer’s

describing the transferred property as EMG stock goes to the nature of 

the gift. Because this description was sufficient to alert the 

Commissioner to the nature of the gift, Mr. Schlapfer substantially 

complied with this requirement.

2. Identity of the Parties9

Mr. Schlapfer did not strictly satisfy this requirement. Treasury 

Regulation § 301.6501(c)-1(f)(2)(ii) requires that Mr. Schlapfer provide

the identity of, and his relationship to, each transferee. Mr. Schlapfer 

has stated various times that he transferred property by gift to his 

9 For this requirement, it is immaterial whether the gift is the stock or the life 

insurance policy; therefore we do not analyze it separately for each gift. 
18

[*18] mother, aunt, and uncle. However, the Offshore Entity Statement

states that he “gifted his entire interest in EMG to his mother;” there 

was no mention of his aunt or uncle. Because his return and documents 

attached thereto failed to identify his aunt and uncle as transferees, he 

did not strictly comply with this requirement. 

But Mr. Schlapfer substantially complied with this requirement. 

This requirement was procedural, and a failure to list the identity and 

relationship of each transferee was not essential to the overall purpose 

of the requirement, which was to provide the IRS with enough 

information to understand the nature of the transfer. Mr. Schlapfer’s 

statement on the Offshore Entity Statement listing his mother as the 

transferee provided the IRS with enough to understand the relationship 

between Mr. Schlapfer and the transferee, a member of his family. His 

failure to provide the names of his aunt and uncle does not make a 

meaningful difference in understanding the nature of the transfer. 

Therefore, we find that he substantially complied with the requirement 

when he identified his mother as the transferee. 

3. Description of Method Used to Determine FMV of 

Gift

Mr. Schlapfer did not strictly satisfy this requirement. Treasury 

Regulation § 301.6501(c)-1(f)(2)(iv) requires that Mr. Schlapfer provide 

a detailed description of the method used to determine the fair market 

value of property transferred, including any financial data (balance 

sheets, etc. with explanations of any adjustments). Mr. Schlapfer did not 

provide any statement describing how he determined the fair market 

value of the gift, regardless of whether it is the EMG stock or the UVL

Policy. Therefore, he failed to strictly satisfy this requirement. 

However, Mr. Schlapfer substantially complied with this 

requirement. Assuming the gift is the EMG stock, Mr. Schlapfer

provided enough financial information to apprise the Commissioner of 

the method used to determine its fair market value. The 2006

instructions for Form 709 explained that the purpose of this 

requirement is to provide the IRS with information on how the taxpayer 

determined the gift’s fair market value. See 2006 Instructions for Form 

709, at 8. The instructions also identified documents that could be 

submitted to satisfy this requirement. Id. (“For stock of close 

corporations or inactive stock, attach balance sheets, particularly the 

one nearest the date of the gift, and statements of net earnings or 

operating results and dividends paid for each of the 5 preceding years.”). 
19

[*19] Mr. Schlapfer provided all the documents identified in the

instructions. His Forms 5471 for 2004, 2005, and 2006 enclosed balance 

sheets, statements of net earnings, dividends paid, and operating 

results. Furthermore, his Offshore Entity Statement stated that 

“[t]axpayer is taking into account all of the income earned by the 

accounts underlying EMG in the enclosed Amended U.S. Individual Tax 

Returns during the years he controlled and beneficially owned EMG.” 

Although Mr. Schlapfer did not provide all the financial documentation 

listed in the regulation, he provided the information identified in the 

2006 Form 709 instructions, which was enough to show the IRS how he 

determined the fair market value of the EMG stock. Therefore, he 

substantially complied with this requirement. 

Furthermore, Mr. Schlapfer substantially complied even if the 

gift is the UVL Policy. The UVL Policy’s principal asset is the EMG 

stock, and the documents we considered above were enough to apprise 

the Commissioner of the method used to determine the fair market value 

of the EMG stock. Because the UVL Policy’s value stems primarily from

the EMG stock, those same documents can be used to illustrate the 

method used to determine the fair market value of the UVL Policy. 

Accordingly, we find that Mr. Schlapfer substantially complied with this 

requirement.

V. Conclusion

Mr. Schlapfer strictly or substantially complied with Treasury 

Regulation § 301.6501(c)-1(f)(2)(i), (ii), and (iv) by way of his gift tax 

return, protective filing, Offshore Entity Statement, and Forms 5471. As 

a result, he adequately disclosed the gift on his 2006 gift tax return, 

causing the three-year assessment period to commence on November 20, 

2013, when he submitted his disclosure package to the OVDP, and end 

on November 30, 2017 (three years after that date including extensions). 

Therefore, we conclude that the period of limitations to assess the gift 

tax expired before the Commissioner issued the notice of deficiency. 

Accordingly, we will deny the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment and grant Mr. Schlapfer’s Cross-Motion for Summary 

Judgment. 

To reflect the foregoing, 

An appropriate order and decision will be entered.