- 61 -
In this case, petitioner had no notice that respondent was
challenging the adequacy of petitioner’s election under section
2032A(e)(8) (as opposed to whether petitioner had elected special
use valuation under section 2032A(e)(8)) before the filing of
respondent’s posttrial brief. When respondent’s estate tax
auditor, Ms. Hiles, informed petitioner that its special use
valuation election was being disallowed, she provided information
that was pertinent only to section 2032A(e)(7). She did not
provide information on how petitioner could satisfy the
requirements of section 2032A(e)(8). The notice of deficiency
was equally uninformative with respect to the section 2032A(e)(8)
requirements, merely stating that petitioner had failed to make
an effective and timely election to value the properties in
accordance with the provisions of section 2032A. At no point
before the filing of respondent’s posttrial brief was petitioner
given any notice that respondent intended to raise the
requirements of section 2032A(e)(8) as a bar to petitioner’s
election. Until his posttrial brief was filed, respondent argued
only that petitioner had not made any election under section
2032A(e)(8); respondent did not contend that the election, if
made, was inadequate. Since respondent did not give any notice
to petitioner regarding his challenge to petitioner’s special use
valuation under section 2032A(e)(8) on its merits until
respondent’s posttrial brief was filed, petitioner had no notice
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011