- 16 -
States, supra, applied the duty of consistency between an estate
and its beneficiaries and distinguished Ford v. United States,
supra, because the taxpayer-beneficiaries in Ford were minor
children in Brazil who had no knowledge of what was written in
their father's estate tax return in the United States. Here, in
contrast to Ford, decedent was an adult, a coexecutor, and a
beneficiary of the estate of her husband, James Letts, Jr., and
James P. Letts III was a beneficiary of and signed the returns of
the Estates of both James Letts, Jr., and decedent. Thus, the
instant case is like the several cases cited above where the duty
of consistency applied and is distinguishable from Ford v. United
States, supra.
We conclude that decedent's estate and the Estate of James
Letts, Jr., are sufficiently related to be treated as one
taxpayer for purposes of the duty of consistency.
4. Whether the Duty of Consistency Applies Here
We next decide whether respondent has shown that the three
elements of the duty of consistency are present here.
a. Whether the Taxpayer Made a Representation of Fact
or Reported an Item for Tax Purposes
The Estate of James Letts, Jr., included the value of the
Item II trust in the marital deduction. That estate was entitled
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011