- 8 -
brief period. For example, death is not clearly
imminent if the individual may survive for a year or
more and if such a possibility is not so remote as to
be negligible. If the evidence indicates that the
decedent will survive for less than a year, no
inference should be drawn that death will be regarded
as clearly imminent, because this question depends on
all the facts and circumstances.
We acknowledge, as the Court of Appeals suggested, that we
did not expressly apply the “clearly imminent” standard
articulated in Rev. Rul. 80-80, supra, in this case, nor, as
explained below, did we feel that we were obliged to do so.
Short of wholly ignoring Rev. Rul. 80-80, supra, however, we
reviewed the ruling and concluded that respondent's position was
not inconsistent with the standard set forth therein.2 Estate of
McLendon v. Commissioner, 66 TCM (CCH) at 965 n.17, 64 TCM (RIA)
at 2456 n.17.
Ultimately, we applied a standard other than that set forth
in Rev. Rul. 80-80, supra, based upon our survey of the case law
and our understanding of both the revenue ruling and the parties'
respective positions. Our survey of the case law disclosed that
no court, including the Fifth Circuit, has expressly adopted the
“clearly imminent” standard articulated in the ruling.3 Further,
2As explained in greater detail below, we would nevertheless
sustain respondent's determination that petitioner erred in
relying on sec. 25.2512-5(f) (Table A), Gift Tax Regs., even
assuming that the standard set forth in Rev. Rul. 80-80, 1980-1
C.B. 194, is controlling.
3We note that Miami Beach First Natl. Bank v. United States,
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011