- 52 -
the Secretary was wrong in doing so. We are unconvinced by
respondent’s policy-based arguments and do not discuss them
further.
Relying upon Estate of Strickland v. Commissioner, supra at
32, where we commented on the apparent inconsistency between the
statute and the regulation, respondent asserts that this Court
has already decided that if comparable property existed from
which the average gross cash rental values could be determined, a
taxpayer was not entitled to value the property using the method
set forth in section 2032A(e)(8). We do not agree with
respondent’s interpretation of the Estate of Strickland case.
Contrary to respondent’s assertion, we did not decide that
failure to document comparable properties precluded a default
election to value property under section 2032A(e)(8). In Estate
of Strickland, the taxpayer failed to document comparable
property in accordance with the regulations and thus did not
comply with the documentation requirements of section 20.2032A-4,
Estate Tax Regs. Therefore, we held that the estate could not
value its farm real property under section 2032A(e)(7)(A). The
estate’s alternate position, that it was entitled to value its
property under the net share method of section 2032A(e)(7)(B),
failed because we found that comparable properties rented for
cash existed in the locality. The estate did not argue that it
Page: Previous 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011