- 8 -
Respondent has previously granted an extension under section
6161(a). According to our record, petitioner's request for a
further extension is now pending.
Respondent contends that we should not delay entry of
decision because it would enable petitioner to deduct interest
that it could not otherwise deduct. We disagree with
respondent's view that such a result is improper. Section
6161(a), like section 6166, can result in an extension of time
for a taxpayer to pay estate tax. We believe the situation in
this case is analogous to that in Estate of Bailly v.
Commissioner, supra.
We distinguish this case from Estate of Nevelson v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-361, because there petitioners
asked the Court to delay entry of decision more than 5 years past
the date the parties had agreed to file a stipulated decision.
Here, the parties have not agreed to a date to file a stipulated
decision.
2. Whether Granting Petitioner's Motion Would Interfere
With Respondent's Exercise of Discretion Under Section
6161
Section 6161(a) gives the Commissioner discretion to grant a
taxpayer's request for extension of time to pay taxes.
Respondent contends that granting petitioner's motion would
eliminate that discretion. We disagree. Our granting of this
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011