Estate of Edward H. Eddy - Page 4




                                        - 4 -                                         
          return was due, Carl Wells, preparer of the estate's return and             
          counsel for petitioner herein, signed and submitted a Form 4768,            
          Application for Extension of Time To File a Return and/or Pay               
          U.S. Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Taxes, requesting            
          an extension for filing to July 13, 1994.  A check for $2 million           
          was submitted with the application.4                                        
               A note attached to the application stated that the executor            
          was waiting for a "Major Securities Firm" to complete its                   
          valuation of the estate's "principal asset", and that the $2                
          million was payment of the estate's tax liability, which was                
          estimated without regard to that valuation.  The application was            
          approved; however, the executor did not file the return before              
          the time provided by the extended due date expired.                         
               Eddy engaged a brokerage firm to provide its opinion of the            


               4The parties stipulated that the estate remitted $2 million            
          "when Exhibit 1-J was filed."  Exhibit 1-J is the estate's Form             
          706, United States Estate (and Generations-Skipping Transfer) Tax           
          Return, filed on Jan. 19, 1996.  However, Exhibit 3-J, which is             
          the estate's Form 4768, Application for Extension of Time To File           
          a Return and/or Pay U.S. Estate (and Generation-Skipping                    
          Transfer) Taxes, shows that the estate remitted $2 million with             
          the application.  Furthermore, the Form 706 shows, and respondent           
          accepts, that the estate remitted $2 million with the Form 4768.            
               While stipulations are not to be set aside lightly, we have            
          broad discretion in determining whether to hold a party to a                
          stipulation.  See Blohm v. Commissioner, 994 F.2d 1542, 1553                
          (11th Cir. 1993), affg. T.C. Memo. 1991-636.  The evidence in the           
          record demonstrates that the stipulation is simply incorrect.  We           
          are not bound by stipulations of fact that appear contrary to the           
          facts disclosed by the record.  See Rule 91(e); Blohm v.                    
          Commissioner, supra.  We, therefore, find as a fact that the                
          estate remitted $2 million with its Form 4768, not with its later           
          filed Form 706.                                                             




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011