- 12 -
Commissioner, supra. Petitioner bears the burden of proving that
the failure to file timely was both due to reasonable cause and
not due to willful neglect. See Rule 142(a); United States v.
Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985). The fact of submission of a
case fully stipulated under Rule 122(a) does not alter the burden
of proof, or the requirements otherwise applicable with respect
to adducing proof, or the effect of failure of proof. See Rule
122(b).
The estate tax return was filed more than 18 months after
the extended due date. Petitioner has not shown that the
delinquent filing was due to reasonable cause. Furthermore, we
find the fact that the executor was waiting for an opinion of the
size of the discount for blockage is not reasonable cause for the
failure to file a timely return. The record shows that both the
value of the gross estate and the estate tax liability were less
on the alternate valuation date than on the date of decedent's
death without consideration of the discount for blockage. See
sec. 2032(c). Moreover, the estate tax return was not filed
until more than 1 year after the executor received the firm's
valuation report.
It is clear that the executor should have filed the estate
tax return on time, electing alternate valuation (and attaching
whatever explanation was appropriate), continued to seek the
necessary information, and then filed a supplemental return with
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011