- 43 -
where the taxpayer's failure is only an oversight or mistake
which was corrected immediately after discovery." Penn-Dixie
Steel Corp. v. Commissioner, supra at 847; see Haft Trust v.
Commissioner, 61 T.C. 398 (1973), supplemented by 62 T.C. 145
(1974) and vacated and remanded 510 F.2d 43 (1st Cir. 1975); Cary
v. Commissioner, 41 T.C. 214 (1963); Reaver v. Commissioner, 42
T.C. 72 (1964); see also Judge Posner's comments in Prussner v.
United States, 896 F.2d at 224:
The common law doctrine of substantial compliance
should not be allowed to spread beyond cases in which
the taxpayer had a good excuse (though not a legal
justification) for failing to comply with either an
unimportant requirement or one unclearly or confusingly
stated in the regulations or the statute. * * *
Petitioner's evidence, explanations, and argument do not provide
any valid substitute for decedent's failure to comply with
section 2518. What petitioner is seeking is "not the application
of the substantial compliance principle but an exemption from the
clear requirement of the statute and regulations". Hewitt v.
Commissioner, 109 T.C. at 265-266. Decedent did not
substantially comply with the requirements of section 2518 and
did not disclaim any property for purposes of the Federal estate
tax or of Oregon law.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Last modified: May 25, 2011