Estate of Gladys J. Cook - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          and realistic means of determining value is available.’”  Vernon            
          v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 484, 489 (1976) (quoting Weller v.                 
          Commissioner, 38 T.C. 790, 803 (1962)); Estate of Gribauskas v.             
          Commissioner, supra at 160.  The burden of showing that the                 
          result is unreasonable rests with the party seeking to deviate              
          from the tables.  Bank of Cal. v. United States, 672 F.2d 758,              
          759 (9th Cir. 1982).                                                        
               In support of departure, the estate cites Estate of                    
          Shackleford v. United States, 84 AFTR 2d 5902, 99-2 USTC par.               
          60,356 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (departure was permitted where right to             
          receive lottery payments was illiquid).  When first presented               
          with the opportunity in Estate of Gribauskas, we refused, as we             
          do here, to follow the anomalous holding in Estate of                       
          Shackleford.  In Estate of Gribauskas v. Commissioner, supra at             
          163-164, we opined:                                                         
               We cannot agree with the District Court for several                    
               reasons.  First, * * * case law offers no support for                  
               considering marketability in valuing annuities.  * * *                 
                    Second, the enactment of a statutory mandate in                   
               section 7520 reflects a strong policy in favor of                      
               standardized actuarial valuation of these interests                    
               which would be largely vitiated by the estate’s                        
               advocated approach.  A necessity to probe in each                      
               instance the nuances of a payee’s contractual rights,                  
               when those rights neither alter or jeopardize the                      
               essential entitlement to a stream of fixed payments,                   
               would unjustifiably weaken the law.                                    
                    Third, as a practical matter, we observe that an                  
               annuity, the value of which consists solely in a                       
               promised stream of fixed payments, is distinct in                      
               nature from those interests to which a marketability                   

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011