- 42 -
computation of special use valuation was inadequate because the
documentation submitted did not identify “specific comparable
rentals and taxes for five years prior to date of death, arms
length transactions to determine the net rents” as required by
section 20.2032A-4, Estate Tax Regs. Ms. Hiles’ notification,
however, contained no reference to section 2032A(e)(8) and did
not identify any deficiencies with respect to the requirements of
section 2032A(e)(8). On December 12, 1995, petitioner submitted
additional documentation (hereinafter Exhibit 13-M) through its
appraisal firm, Reeder, Gilman & Associates. This additional
documentation was received by respondent within the 90-day
curative period provided under section 2032A(d)(3).
On August 6, 1998, Reeder, Gilman & Associates completed an
update to its special use valuation report of December 12, 1995
(hereinafter Exhibit 29). Obviously, Exhibit 29 was submitted
well beyond the 90-day curative period, which ended on December
12, 1995.
Before 1997, the availability of the 90-day curative period
depended upon the estate’s substantial compliance with the
regulations. See Estate of Strickland v. Commissioner, supra at
23. In 1997, Congress deleted the substantial compliance
requirement of section 2032A(d)(3), effective for estates of
decedents dying after August 5, 1997. See Taxpayer Relief Act of
1997, Pub. L. 105-34, sec. 1313(a), 111 Stat. 1045. Despite the
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011