- 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 LaPage: 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