- 67 -
Meres v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. at 324, we plainly stated as
follows:
Petitioner did not timely pay the estate tax shown
on the return because it elected to defer payment under
section 6166. The section 6166 election was invalid
because it was made in a return which was not timely
filed.
We hold, for respondent, that petitioner did not make a
valid section 6166 election.28
B. Reasonable Cause for Late Payment
The amount of any addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2)
depends on the amount shown as the liability on the estate tax
return (or, if less, then the correct liability–-see sec.
6651(c)(2)) and the amount paid at any time during the
potentially 50-month addition period. See sec. 6651(b)(2). In
light of our holdings as to the Subject Properties’ values, supra
table 2, as well as the parties’ stipulations of settled issues,
the correct liability is to be determined under Rule 155. The
parties have not directed our attention to information in the
record as to the dates and amounts of the tax payments. Thus, we
are not in a position to quantify the section 6651(a)(2) dispute.
28 Our holding that petitioner’s sec. 6166 election is invalid
because it was not timely, makes it unnecessary to rule on the
parties’ dispute as to whether petitioner’s real estate holdings
constituted “a closely held business,” the value of which
exceeded 35 percent of the adjusted gross estate, as required by
sec. 6166(a)(1).
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