- 62 -
before trial of the alleged defects in its election and should
not now be criticized for its failure to anticipate and deal with
respondent’s concerns at trial.
We conclude that when it enacted and amended section
2032A(d)(3), Congress intended for estates to have a realistic
opportunity to correct defective special use valuation elections.
We hold that respondent’s incomplete notice under section
2032A(d)(3) deprived petitioner of the opportunity to correct its
allegedly defective election under section 2032A(e)(8) and
precludes respondent from raising the requirements of section
2032A(e)(8) as a bar to petitioner’s election. To hold otherwise
would be tantamount to writing section 2032A(d)(3) out of the
statute or making respondent’s obligation to adhere to its
provisions optional.
We uphold petitioner’s section 2032A election and hold that
petitioner is entitled to a reduction in the aggregate fair
market value of the qualified real property in the amount of
$750,000, the maximum reduction in value allowed by section
2032A(a)(2).
V. Conclusion
We have carefully considered the remaining arguments of both
parties for results contrary to those expressed herein, and, to
the extent not discussed above, find those arguments to be
irrelevant, moot, or without merit.
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