- 31 -
Hewitt v. Commissioner, 109 T.C. 258 (1997) (no substantial
compliance found where petitioners failed to obtain an appraisal
required by section 1.170A-13, Income Tax Regs. of nonpublicly
traded stock that they donated), affd. per curiam 166 F.3d 332
(4th Cir. 1998), with Bond v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 32 (1993)
(substantial compliance with that regulation found where
petitioners obtained a qualified appraisal, but did not attach a
written report to their return). See also Estate of Bennett v.
Commissioner, supra at 72-74 (discussing In re Will of Witz, 406
N.Y.S.2d 671 (Sur. Ct. 1978) (attempted disclaimer treated as in
substantial compliance with State statute)).
In other cases in which a substantial compliance claim has
been raised, we have consistently required "specific,
contemporaneous, and incontrovertible evidence of a binding
election to accept the tax consequences imposed by the section.
We are not at liberty to infer that an election existed when the
unequivocal proof required by Congress does not exist." Tipps v.
Commissioner, supra at 470-471; Dunavant v. Commissioner , 63
T.C. 316 (1974); see also Young v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 831, 839
(1984) ("the taxpayer must exhibit in some manner, within the
time prescribed by the statute, his unequivocal agreement to
accept both the benefits and burdens of the tax treatment
afforded by that section."), affd. 783 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1986);
Valdes v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 910, 914-915 (1973). Thus, a
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011