- 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