- 17 -
asserting that the stock had a value in excess of that used for
estate tax purposes. The court refused to bind the beneficiaries
to the estate's valuation of the stock because the taxpayers were
minors and had no knowledge of what was being written in their
father's estate tax return in the United States. Id. at 22.12
A number of courts have distinguished Ford, finding that a
taxpayer can, under appropriate circumstances, be estopped by a
representation made by or on behalf of a related taxpayer. E.g.,
Hess v. United States, supra; Beltzer v. United States, supra;
McMillan v. United Sates, supra. In Hess v. United States, supra
at 464, the court distinguished its own decision in Ford, finding
that the representation of an estate bound a testamentary trust
created by the estate. In reaching this decision, the court
found that, although the trust and the estate were separate legal
entities, it was "fair and in accord with the spirit of law, to
require the trust to act in a manner consistent with the estate",
because the two entities were "very closely related." Id.
In Beltzer v. United States, supra at 212-213, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a beneficiary
was bound by an estate's representation, distinguishing the Ford
case. In Beltzer, the taxpayer was a coexecutor of his father's
estate. The taxpayer inherited stock which had been reported in
12 Unlike the situation in Ford v. United States, 149 Ct. Cl.
558, 276 F.2d 17 (1960), petitioner was an adult and married to
Elwood in 1989 when he signed the agreement.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011