Anna Lee Locke - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          as trustee of the trust.  The Court of Appeals held that the                
          Commissioner was estopped from asserting the liability of the               
          bank because the bank had distributed the corpus in reliance on             
          the Commissioner's determination, and the bank would have had to            
          pay the liability out of the bank's funds.  Schuster v.                     
          Commissioner, 312 F.2d at 318.  The closing letter issued to the            
          decedent's estate related solely to the estate tax.                         
               Here, the Commissioner has done no about-face, as in                   
          Schuster, i.e., petitioner's liability as transferee does not               
          arise in respect to any estate tax owed by the decedent's estate.           
          Rather, her liability is for the decedent's income tax, as to               
          which the closing letter was silent.  There is accordingly no               
          showing of detrimental reliance on her part comparable to that              
          incurred by the bank in Schuster.                                           
               Petitioner testified that she did not receive the NBAP or              
          the FPAA and offered several theories to support her testimony.             
          She claims that the IRS used an incorrect zip code; the IRS                 
          failed to change the name on the NBAP and FPAA to her name and              
          incorrectly used the decedent's name; and a change of address had           
          been submitted to the United States Postal Service by the person            
          that had acquired the decedent's medical practice.  She also                
          notes that her son lived with her and had the same name as the              
          decedent.  Petitioner argues that the notices were invalid on the           
          ground that they were mailed to the wrong zip code and addressed            
          to the decedent and not to petitioner.                                      




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011