- 42 -
acknowledged at trial--of the "inadvertence and oversight and
negligence at [Myer & Wyse]...this [signing Exhibit 8-H] was not
carried through."
C. No Compliance
Petitioner's counsel has tried to cure the effects of the
inadvertence by cobbling together a series of nondispositive
documents and events.
These efforts are unavailing because substantial compliance
cannot be predicated on lack of compliance. Contrary to
petitioner's characterizations of the situation, we do not find
respondent's refusal to recognize the alleged disclaimer to be "a
rigid, inequitable application of the regulations." In the case
at hand, decedent failed to make an irrevocable and unqualified
refusal in writing of an interest in property. This was hardly a
failure to comply with procedural or directory requirements.
Decedent failed to execute a written document containing a
manifestation of his intent to disclaim the assets marked "J", or
any other interests in property, and he therefore failed to
comply with the essential requirements of section 2518. See
American Air Filter Co. v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. at 719. "[T]his
is not a case where the taxpayer has fulfilled all underlying
requirements but failed to file evidence of such facts." Penn-
Dixie Steel Corp. v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. at 847; Columbia Iron
& Metal Co. v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 5 (1973). "Nor is it a case
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011