Estate of Gordon B. McLendon, Deceased, Gordon R. McLendon, Jr., Independent Executor - Page 8

                                        - 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,           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011