- 16 -
1974); Griffith v. United States, 27 AFTR 71-436, 71-1 USTC par.
9280 (N.D. Tex. 1971); McMillan v. United Sates, supra; accord
Hess v. United States, 210 Ct. Cl. 483, 537 F.2d 457 (1976). But
cf. Ford v. United States, 149 Ct. Cl. 558, 276 F.2d 17 (1960).
In Beltzer, Griffith, and McMillan, the taxpayer beneficiary had
been a coexecutor or administratrix of the estate. In Hess, the
taxpayer was a testamentary trust whose trustees had been
coadministrators of the estate. By contrast, in Ford, where the
beneficiaries had not been estate fiduciaries, the quasi-estoppel
doctrine was rejected by the court. This Court has not
previously addressed this precise issue.
In Ford v. United States, supra, the decedent was a citizen
of the United States and a resident of Brazil. At the time of
his death, the decedent owned stock in a Brazilian corporation.
Under Brazilian law, the stock passed from the decedent to his
two minor children. The executor of the decedent's estate used
the value established by Brazilian appraisers, after converting
the amount into dollars, for Federal estate tax purposes. The
Commissioner contested the method of computing the rate of
exchange but not the actual value of the stock. The executor
acquiesced on this issue, although other issues were litigated.
Subsequently, after the children reached majority, they sold
their stock and claimed a basis substantially in excess of that
used for estate tax purposes. The U.S. Court of Claims held that
the duty of consistency did not estop the taxpayers from
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011