Source: https://nytaxattorney.com/2010/03/15/tax-court-bars-late-alternate-valuation-election/
Timestamp: 2017-05-25 23:40:59
Document Index: 538047899

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2013', '§ 2013', '§ 7520', '§7520', '§20', '§ 7520', '§ 2032', '§ 2032', '§ 5']

Tax Court Bars Late Alternate Valuation Election | Law Offices of David L. Silverman
HomeLawyers
← Tax Planning for IRA Distributions
Congress Fails in Bid to Repeal Estate Tax (October 2000) →
Tax Court Bars Late Alternate Valuation Election	Posted on March 15, 2010	by David L. Silverman, J.D., LL.M. (Taxation) The Tax Court held that estates of spouses who were presumed to die in a private airplane crash could not use actuarial tables to value the testamentary life estates because the interests created by reciprocal will had no value. Estate of Harrison v. CIR, 115 T.C. 13 (8/22/2000). The will of each spouse presumed survival by the other in circumstances where the order of death was unknown and transferred a life estate to that spouse.
For estate tax purposes, the transferred life estates were valued on the basis of actuarial tables, and each estate took a credit for tax on prior transfers pursuant to IRC § 2013. [§ 2013 provides an estate tax credit with respect to the “transfer of property . . . to the decedent by or from a person who died within 10 years before, or within 2 years after, the decedent’s death.” The credit is the product of a fraction, determined by calculating the value of property transferred over the taxable estate, multiplied by the estate tax paid.]
The estates argued that the language of § 7520 was clear in providing that “the value of any annuity . . . shall be determined under tables prescribed by the Secretary” and cited to McClendon, which in reversing an earlier Tax Court decision, held that “[w]here the Commissioner has specifically approved a valuation methodology, like the actuarial tables, in his own revenue ruling, he will not be heard to fault a taxpayer for taking advantage of the tax minimization opportunities inherent therein.” McLendon v. CIR, 135 F.3d 1017 (5th Cir. 1998), revg. and remanding T.C. Memo. 1996-307.
The Tax Court, finding McLendon inapposite, ruled that the life estates must be accorded no value. The court reasoned that §7520(b) by its own terms “shall not apply” where otherwise provided in the regulations, and that Estate Tax Reg. §20.7520-3 provides that § 7520 shall not apply “to the extent provided by the IRS in revenue rulings or revenue procedures.” Rev. Rul. 96-3 in turn provides that departure from actuarial tables is warranted in instances of (1) terminal illness, where there is at least a 50% probability of death within one year; and (2) deaths resulting from a common accident.
Noting Estate of Carter v. U.S., 921 F.2d 63 (5th Cir. 1991), which held that an interest which “passed between persons dying in a common disaster has no value,” the Tax Court concluded that although Notice 89-24 provides that new tables are to be used to value an annuity, the notice does not determine the “substantive” question of whether actuarial tables are properly applied in the first instance. In a simultaneous death situation the court found that the life estates had no value. Therefore, actuarial tables could not be used in valuing the reciprocal life estates.
The Tax Court in Estate of Eddy v. CIR, 115 T.C. 10 (8/16/00), held that an alternate valuation election must be made within 1 year after the time prescribed by law (including extensions) for filing the estate tax return.
The due date for the estate tax return in question was January 13, 1994, nine months after the decedent’s date of death. A timely extension was filed, requiring the estate tax return to be filed by July 13, 1994. The estate tax return was not filed until January 19, 1996, 33 months after the decedent’s death and more than 18 months after the extended due date for filing the return. The return reported the alternate value of the estate assets as $5.99 million and the date-of-death value as $6.60 million.
Under IRC § 2032(d), which was amended in 1984, an alternate election may be made on a late-filed return if the return is filed within one year of the due date. The estate argued that Rev. Proc. 92-85 accords the Commissioner discretion to allow an untimely election to use the alternate valuation date. Rev. Proc. 92-85 permits “extensions of time when a statute provides that an election may be made by the due date of the taxpayer’s return or the due date of the taxpayer’s return including extensions.”
In rejecting the estate’s argument, the court held that no election could be made after the 1-year period of “legislative grace” provided by § 2032(d), since the due date of the taxpayer’s return, including extensions, ended after the 1-year period. Since Rev. Proc. 92-85 applied only to the 1-year grace period, the executor’s failure to file a return within that period precluded the election.
40.756035
-73.689809
Share this:EmailPrintTwitterLinkedInFacebook
This entry was posted in Tax Decisions, Tax News & Comment. Bookmark the permalink.	← Tax Planning for IRA Distributions
Information Desk Cancel reply	Enter your comment here...
Delaware Asset Protection Trusts (6)
Charitable Entities (5)
Itemized Deductions (1)
Depreciation & Amortization (2)
Amortization of Good Will (1)
Depreciation Recapture (1)
Estate Planning (79)
Asset Sales to Grantor Trusts (5)
Defined Value Clauses (1)
Estate Planning in 2013 (1)
Family Entities (7)
General Power of Appointment (1)
GRATs (1)
Lifetime Exclusion (4)
Marital Deduction (4)
QTIP Election (1)
Post Mortem Estate Planning (1)
QPRTs (2)
Real Estate Title Issues (1)
SCINs (1)
Asset Protection Trusts (3)
Charitable Remainder Trusts (1)
Decanting (3)
Grantor Trusts (3)
Income Taxation of Nongrantor trusts (3)
Inter Vivos Trusts (3)
Life Insurance Trusts (6)
Marital Deduction Trusts (2)
QPRTs (1)
Supplemental Needs Trusts (1)
Will Contests (2)
Federal Estate Tax (4)
Calculation of Federal Estate Tax (1)
Post Mortem Estate Tax Planning (1)
Federal Gift Tax (2)
Federal Income Tax (28)
Installment Reporting (2)
Like Kind Exchanges (23)
Avoiding Boot (1)
Deferred Exchanges (2)
Reverse Exchanges (2)
Federal Tax Litigation (3)
Tax Refund Litigation (2)
Executor and Trustee Commissions (4)
Income Taxation of Nongrantor trusts (2)
Generation Skipping Tax (1)
Gift Tax Planning (10)
Gifts to Minors (2)
Gift Tax Returns (3)
Incentive Stock Options (2)
IRS Accuracy-Related Penalties (1)
IRS Audits (5)
Adminisitrative Appeals (1)
Taxpayer Rights During Audit (2)
IRS Liens & Levies (2)
IRS Rulings & Regulations (6)
Like Kind Exchanges of Real Estate Under IRC Section 1031 (3)
Federal Tax Litigation (4)
NYS Commercial Litigation (1)
NYS Tax Litigation (5)
NYS Residency (2)
New York State Income Tax (8)
NYS Dept. of Tax’n & Finance (7)
Criminal Penalties (3)
NYS DTF Matters (3)
NYS Penalties (2)
NYS Tax Litigation (15)
Sales Tax Litigation (5)
Partnership Taxation (2)
Pension & Retirement Accounts (3)
Post Mortem Estate & Income Tax Planning (1)
Probate & Administration (11)
EPTL Right of Election (1)
Executor & Trustee Commissions (2)
Post Mortem Estate Planning (3)
Probate — Analysis & Procedure (1)
Tax Apportionment Clause (1)
Property Transactions (9)
Exclusion of Gain From Sale of Residence (3)
Short Stock Sales (1)
Timing of Income and Deductions (2)
Spring Seminar Series (1)
Tax Decisions (68)
Tax News & Comment (168)
From Albany (3)
From the Courts (7)
From Washington (23)
Gift & Estate Tax Decisions of Note (8)
IRS Matters (22)
Monthly Comment (1)
Treatises (34)
Divorce, Tax Planning For (1)
Estate Planning in 2010 (1)
Executor & Trustee Commissions Under the EPTL (1)
Federal Tax Litigation (1)
Foreign Taxation (1)
Grantor Trust Treatise (1)
Grantor Trusts (1)
Income Taxation of New York Trusts (1)
Income Taxation of Nongrantor trusts (1)
Like Kind Exchanges of Real Estate Under IRC Sec. 1031 (2013 Revised Ed.) (3)
New York Criminal Tax (1)
New York State Tax Litigation (2)
Tax & Legal Issues Arising in Connection with the Federal Gift Tax Return (2013 Revision) (1)
The Decedent’s Last Will: A Final Profound Statement (1)
The Evolution of Trusts in American Jurisprudence (1)
Recent Articles & Treatises	Tax News & Comment – April 2017
Tax News & Comment — May 2016
FROM WASHINGTON & ALBANY — Current Election Probabilities; Tax Plans of Trump and Clinton
FROM FEDERAL AND NYS COURTS: Recent Developments & 2015 Decisions of Note
IRS & NYS DTF MATTERS: Recent Developments & 2015 Regs. & Rulings of Note
Creating and Maintaining Flexibility in Wills and Trusts
Escaping the Quandary Posed by Unreported Foreign Accounts
Like Kind Exchanges Alive and Well: An Update
From Washington & Albany — Income & Estate Tax Planning in 2015
From Federal Courts, NYS Courts & Tax Tribunals — Recent Developments & 2014 Decisions of Note
Most Popular	Executor and Trustee Commissions Under NY EPTL	Legal Basis for Seeking Abatement of New York State Tax Penalties	Executor and Trustee Commissions Under the New York EPTL	Elements of New York Tax Fraud	Defeating The Right of Election in EPTL § 5-1.1-A	Installment Sales in Real Estate Transactions	Depreciation Recapture	Use of Disclaimers in Pre and Post-Mortem Estate Planning	New York Revised Legislation Re: Revocable Inter Vivos Trusts (October 1997)	Gain, Loss and Depreciation Issues in Like Kind Exchange	CategoriesCategories
Tax News & Comment – April 2017 nytaxattorney.com/2017/03/13/tax… 2 months ago
FROM WASHINGTON & ALBANY — CURRENT ELECTION PROBABILITIES; TAX PLANS OF TRUMP AND CLINTON nytaxattorney.com/2016/05/13/fro… 1 year ago
FROM FEDERAL COURTS , NYS COURTS & TAX TRIBUNALS: Recent Developments & 2015 Decisions of Note nytaxattorney.com/2016/05/13/fro… 1 year ago
IRS & NYS DTF MATTERS: Recent Developments & 2015 Regs. & Rulings of Note nytaxattorney.com/2016/05/13/irs… 1 year ago
Creating and Maintaining Flexibility in Wills and Trusts nytaxattorney.com/2016/05/13/cre… 1 year ago
Escaping the Quandary Posed by Unreported Foreign Accounts nytaxattorney.com/2016/05/13/esc… 1 year ago
Follow @taxnewscomment	Law Offices of David L. Silverman	Blog at WordPress.com.