- 62 -
* * * that the election was valid.” Respondent argues that, if
we have jurisdiction to determine the validity of the section
6166 election, then this election is not valid because it was not
timely. Finally, respondent argues that, if we have jurisdiction
and if the section 6166 election was timely, then petitioner “is
not entitled to I.R.C. �6166 treatment because 35% of the
decedent’s assets were not in a closely held business.”
Petitioner responds to this last argument by asserting that well
over 50 percent of the gross estate consisted of decedent’s
commercial real estate holdings.
We agree with petitioner’s conclusion that we have
jurisdiction in the instant case to determine the validity of
petitioner’s section 6166 election, but we agree with
respondent’s first alternative that the election is not valid
because it was not timely.
(1) Jurisdiction
A predicate for imposition of the addition to tax under
section 6651(a)(2), see supra note 22, is that there has been a
“failure * * * to pay the amount shown as tax on any return * * *
on or before the date prescribed for payment of such tax
(determined with regard to any extension of time for payment)”.
(Emphasis added).
Page: Previous 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011