- 66 -
a deficiency in that addition to tax, and petitioner’s placing
that determination in dispute.
We hold, for petitioner, that we have jurisdiction in the
instant case to determine the validity of petitioner’s section
6166 election; we now proceed to exercise that jurisdiction.
(2) Timeliness
Section 6166(d) provides that the election of deferral of
payment of estate tax “shall be made not later than the time
prescribed by section 6075(a) for filing the return of tax
imposed by section 2001 (including extensions thereof)”.
(Emphasis added.) As explained supra, the section 6166 election
was made with the tax return, but the tax return was not timely
filed. As a result, the section 6166 election was not timely
made. Because the section 6166 election was not timely made, as
a matter of law, this election is not valid. See Bank of the
West v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 462, 473 (1989); Estate of La Meres
v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 294, 324 (1992).
On answering brief, petitioner states that
Petitioner demonstrated “reasonable cause” for the late
filing of the Return, and therefore his IRC �6166
election to pay the Estate taxes in installments was
timely and valid.
Later in that brief, petitioner stated that this Court had ruled
in Estate of La Meres v. Commissioner, supra, that the section
6166 election involved in that case was valid. Petitioner
misstates the law and misstates our holding. In Estate of La
Page: Previous 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011