- 31 -
Estate of Christ v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 493, 535-537 (1970),
affd. 480 F.2d 171 (9th Cir. 1973). It was equally well
recognized that the burden of proving that this standard was met
rested on the party seeking to deviate from the tables. See Bank
of Calif. v. United States, 672 F.2d 758, 759 (9th Cir. 1982);
Vernon v. Commissioner, supra at 489; Estate of Christ v.
Commissioner, supra at 535.
In the instant case, the estate maintains that the annuity
tables yield an unrealistic and unreasonable result for the
decedent’s winnings on the grounds that “tabular valuation fails
to consider (1) the unsecured nature of the LOTTO prize
obligation, (2) the lack of a corpus from which to draw upon, and
(3) the inability to assign, sell or transfer the interest.” The
estate asserts that the nearly $925,000 difference between an
appraised value which purportedly takes these features into
account and the section 7520 value shows failure by the tables to
produce a realistic result. Respondent’s position, on the other
hand, is that case law authorizes departure from the tables only
where one or more of the “assumptions on which the tables are
based, namely probability of survival of the measuring life,
assumed rate of return, or assumed continuous availability of the
source of funds for payment of the interest” differ significantly
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011