Estate of Emanuel Trompeter, Deceased, Robin Carol Trompeter Gonzalez and Janet Ilene Trompeter Polacheck, Co-Executors - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         

          calculated on an annual basis, but is a one-time charge or excise           
          that is computed on the value of a decedent's gross estate less             
          certain deductions which are specifically allowed by the Code.              
          Some of these deductions, like the ones at hand, cannot be                  
          determined until after a return is filed.  Unlike an NOL                    
          carryback, these deductions do not depend on unrelated,                     
          unforeseen, or fortuitous circumstances that may occur in later             
          years.  These deductions are directly related to a determination            
          of an estate's tax liability.  In contrast to the determination             
          of Federal income tax liability, a determination of Federal                 
          estate tax liability is not made based solely on deductions that            
          are required to be reported on the appropriate tax return as                
          filed.  Indeed, our rules explicitly recognize the fact that even           
          some expenses incurred at or after a trial are deductible in                
          determining an estate's Federal estate tax liability.  See Rule             
          156; see also Estate of Bailly v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 246,                
          supplemented by 81 T.C. 949 (1983).                                         
               We also disagree with respondent's argument in this case               
          because it could possibly lead to the imposition of the fraud               
          penalty when the taxpayer/estate does not have an underpayment of           
          tax and, indeed, may even be entitled to an overpayment.  Such a            
          result is inconsistent with jurisprudence.  As this Court has               
          consistently held, the fraud penalty does not apply without an              
          underpayment because "[absent] an underpayment, there is nothing            
          upon which the fraud addition to tax [or penalty, as it is now              



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011