- 9 -
Since fraud on the part of the taxpayer as to the
alleged deficiencies is the issue in this case, it is
correct to state that if there is no deficiency, there
can be no fraud in connection with the alleged
deficiency. This evidence should have been received.
[Jenkins v. United States, 313 F.2d 624, 627 (5th Cir.
1963).]
We have also considered whether an estate may deduct the
items reported on its estate tax return, in order to determine
its underpayment for purposes of applying section 6663(a), as
well as any unreported item that is properly deductible as of the
date that the estate tax return is filed. Such a result would be
reached by interpreting the phrase "tax required to be shown on a
return", as it appears in section 6663(a), to mean that an estate
must determine the related underpayment for that section by
taking into account only those items that could have been
properly deducted from the gross estate on the date that the
return was filed. We reject this interpretation. Congress did
not intend for that phrase to be understood in a temporal sense,
but intended that the phrase serve as a rule of classification.
In other words, the phrase "tax required to be shown on a return"
merely refers to the type of tax that is subject to section
6663(a); namely, a tax payable with a return as opposed to, for
example, a tax payable by stamp. In addition to our literal
reading of section 6663(a), in the view of the text of section
6663 as a whole, we find Congress' intent for the relevant phrase
by examining the evolution of section 6663(a). Section 6663(a)
was added to the Code by section 7721(a) of the Omnibus Budget
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