- 13 -
estate to deduct “projected interest payments” it had claimed.
Id. at 83.5 The Estate of Bahr case, however, involved a
situation where the taxpayer (estate) was paying interest to the
Government pursuant to the Commissioner’s approval to permit the
Bahr estate to defer payment under section 6161. That is not the
situation here. Respondent, after a succession of five
extensions, filed a lien, and the tax was paid. It is after the
payment, not during its deferral, that petitioner seeks to deduct
interest incurred by the beneficiaries and/or their own family
trusts because of their choice to hold the property for
appreciation and, instead, borrow against it to meet their
obligation to pay an agreed estate tax liability.
Petitioner asks us to use Estate of Bahr v. Commissioner,
supra, as a platform from which to extend relief to it. Although
this Court has accommodated taxpayers in circumstances where
their delay was either approved by the Commissioner or
statutorily mandated,6 it is not within our province to create a
5 Petitioner has argued that if we do not permit the stay
of these proceedings for the requested period (up to 20 years),
that it should be able to deduct a present value estimate of the
interest. In that regard, respondent has indicated that it would
be impossible to estimate the interest because the loan could be
prepaid and/or the lender could, under certain circumstances
accelerate the outstanding balance.
6 See, e.g., Estate of Wetherington v. Commissioner, 108
T.C. 49 (1997), where this Court deferred entry of decision
during the pendency of the Commissioner’s consideration of
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011