- 14 -
remedy that is clearly within the province of Congress. There
has been no case like the present one where: (1) The parties
have resolved the estate tax liability by agreement; (2) no
section 6161 extension is in effect or application pending; (3)
no deferred payment under section 6166 is in effect; and (4) the
taxpayer seeks an extended delay (up to 20 years) so that a
nonparty (family trusts of beneficiaries) can benefit from
improved market conditions that may or may not occur.
The result in the Estate of Bahr case was distinguished in
Estate of Bailly v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 246 (1983) (Bailly I),
where the Court noted that in Estate of Bahr the interest rate
was constant, whereas in Bailly I the interest rate fluctuated
(from 6 to 20 percent). Because the amount of interest on an
estate tax liability could not be estimated with reasonable
certainty, in Bailly I the estate was not allowed to deduct the
estimated or future payments of interest. In Bailly I, the Court
also refused to permit relief to the estate by allowing it to
vary from the Commissioner’s procedure of the filing of an
6(...continued)
whether to permit an extension under sec. 6161. In that case,
the Court specifically noted that the circumstances were
different from one where the parties had agreed to a stipulated
decision, and a 5-year delay was sought and denied. See Estate
of Nevelson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-361. The Court also
noted that “the parties have not agreed to a date to file a
stipulated decision.” Estate of Wetherington v. Commissioner,
supra at 53.
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