- 43 -
effective date, respondent concedes on brief that the amended
statute is applicable to petitioner.18
There is no dispute that petitioner timely submitted the
recapture agreement described in section 2032A(d)(2). Because
Congress deleted the requirement of substantial compliance in
1997, and respondent has now conceded the amendment’s retroactive
application to petitioner, the only remaining requirement for
curative information is that it be timely submitted after notice
of defect has been given. Here, there is no dispute that Exhibit
13-M was timely. Thus, we must deny respondent’s motion with
respect to that exhibit because it bears directly upon the issue
of whether a valid section 2032A election was made. With respect
to Exhibit 29, however, this information was clearly submitted
well beyond the 90-day period allowed by statute. But since the
notification provided pursuant to section 2032A(d)(3) did not
identify any deficiencies in petitioner’s election as it relates
to section 2032A(e)(8), the 90-day curative period with respect
to section 2032A(e)(8) has not commenced and, consequently, does
not foreclose submission of additional material arguably relevant
to the section 2032A(e)(8) requirements. For these reasons,
18Congress intended that, “with respect to technically
defective 2032A elections made prior to the date of enactment,
prior law should be applied in a manner consistent with the
provision.” H. Conf. Rept. 105-220, at 720 (1997).
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011