Estate of Ethel Josephine Spowart Hinz - Page 66



                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011