- 16 -
extended to section 6161 situations were the estates are given
additional time to pay the estate tax liability and interest
accrues in the same manner as in the section 6166 situations.
Petitioner argues that the facts in this case present an
opportunity for a logical extension of the practice of delaying
decisions to permit the deduction of interest that has been
permitted for sections 6166 and 6161 situations. Petitioner
contends that the only difference7 between Estate of Bailly and
Estate of Wetherington and this case is that in the prior cases
the estates were, in effect, borrowing from the Government and
here the borrowing is from a private source. As to that point,
petitioner refers to Estate of Bahr v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 74
(1977), where the Court permitted interest deductions for the
estate’s borrowing from a private source to pay the estate tax
liability. Respondent addresses petitioner’s arguments by
explaining that, unlike Estate of Bahr v. Commissioner, supra,
here the estate did not borrow to pay its estate tax liability.
Instead, the loan proceeds were obtained by the family trusts of
the trustee/beneficiaries. As we have already found, petitioner
7 Another substantial difference is that prior cases
involved situations where the taxpayer was either permitted to
extend, in the process of seeking extension, or making deferred
payments under statutory provisions where Congress had provided
specific relief, an element clearly lacking in our factual
situation.
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