Estate of Rebecca A. Wineman - Page 48




                                       - 48 -                                         

          year average.”  Thus, the report does not indicate the actual               
          cash rentals of comparable real property for the period 1987-91.            
          Instead, the report provides actual cash rentals of 10 comparable           
          properties for 1995 and an impermissible appraisal asserting that           
          the 1995 rental values were indicative of the 1987-91 rental                
          values.  See sec. 2032A-4(b)(2)(iii), Estate Tax Regs.  As in               
          Estate of Strickland, petitioner has failed to identify annual              
          gross cash rentals of comparable real property and State and                
          local taxes for such comparable properties for the requisite 5              
          calendar years preceding decedent’s date of death.  Petitioner’s            
          failure to comply with the requirements of section 2032A(e)(7)(A)           
          and the regulations thereunder precludes special use valuation              
          for the properties under that section.  See Estate of Strickland            
          v. Commissioner, supra at 33.                                               
                    2.   Section 2032A(e)(8)                                          
               Petitioner maintains, in the alternative, that it was                  
          entitled to value the properties under section 2032A(e)(8), that            
          the information submitted to the Service within the 90-day period           
          was adequate for that purpose, and that, in essence, respondent’s           
          failure to mention section 2032A(e)(8) at any time before trial             
          makes the requirements of that section new matter.  Respondent              
          takes exception to all aspects of petitioner’s alternative                  
          argument.  In essence, respondent contends that petitioner may              
          not switch theories in midstream, and that, even if petitioner              





Page:  Previous  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011