- 51 -
II. Late Filing Addition–-Sec. 6651(a)(1)
The estate tax return was due by February 4, 1993.
Petitioner requested an extension to July 31, 1993. Respondent
granted an extension to August 4, 1993. See supra table 1. The
tax return was received by respondent on February 4, 1994. Thus,
the tax return was not timely filed. At the time of filing the
tax return, both Hinz and Christy thought that petitioner had
been granted a filing extension to February 4, 1994, and that the
filing was timely.
Petitioner contends that its failure to timely file the tax
return was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect
because (1) Hinz, as executor, relied on Christy’s erroneous
advice that respondent had extended the filing period to February
4, 1994, and (2) the late filing was due to extraordinary
circumstances–-confusing and illegible extension dates by
respondent combined with Christy’s then-unsuspected eye
disease.21
21 Petitioner does not contend, in the alternative, that the
amount of any addition to tax for failure to timely file the
estate tax return should be less than 25 percent because the tax
return was not filed more than 4 months late or because of the
interplay of paragraphs (1) and (2) of sec. 6651(a). See sec.
6651(c)(1). As a result, we do not consider any such issue.
However, we treat as implicit in the pleadings, and petitioner
notes on opening brief, the alternative computational contention
that the amount of the sec. 6651(a)(1) addition to tax should
take into account any reduction in the amount of the deficiency
resulting from the parties’ settled issues and our determinations
under Issue I, supra. This computation shall be made under Rule
(continued...)
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011