- 42 -
In addition to these differences, the instant case is
otherwise distinguishable from Estate of Harrah v. United States,
supra. In our case, petitioner is not seeking to gain
jurisdiction with a time-barred claim; we have jurisdiction
because respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's estate
tax, issued a notice of deficiency, and petitioner filed timely a
petition in response thereto. Moreover, petitioner is not
attempting to reduce the income tax paid in the time-barred year;
it is asserting that equitable recoupment is available to reduce
the estate tax deficiency in the open year with the income tax on
the same item that earlier was erroneously overpaid.
Most importantly, the 1983 and 1984 sales of the Holiday
Inns shares by the estate and trust were many transactional
generations removed from the transfer of the Harrah's stock to
the estate and its sale of that stock in the merger. Neither the
convertible subordinated debentures nor the Holiday Inns shares
were items included in the estate. Furthermore, unlike the item
in Bull v. United States, supra, and the item in the instant
case, the Holiday Inns shares were not taxed once under the
estate tax as corpus and again under the income tax as capital
gain.
Finally, unlike the case at hand, where the only act of
petitioner that contributed to the circumstance of double
taxation was the erroneous valuation of those assets, see United
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011