- 32 -
from the actual facts presented. Respondent further emphasizes
that a quantitative comparison of values obtained under different
approaches is no basis for deviation.
As a preliminary matter in our assessment of the parties’
contentions, we reiterate a point made earlier. Precedent and
logic clearly establish that a private annuity, for purposes of
the tables, may be both unsecured and independent of any
particular corpus. See Dix v. Commissioner, 46 T.C. 796, 798,
800-801 (1966); Estate of Cullison v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1998-216. Hence, our analysis here will focus on whether the
third of the estate’s alleged reasons for departure from the
tables, the lack of marketability, supports such a deviation.
A review of the cases addressing attempts to avoid use of
the tables reveals that those permitting departure have almost
invariably, with an exception to be discussed below, required a
factual showing that renders unrealistic and unreasonable the
return or mortality assumptions underlying the tables. In
general, it has been recognized that expert actuarial testimony
establishing the Commissioner’s tables to be old or outmoded may
be cause for deviation. See Estate of Christ v. Commissioner,
480 F.2d 171, 174 (9th Cir. 1973), affg. 54 T.C. 493 (1970);
Dunigan v. United States, 434 F.2d 892, 895-896 (5th Cir. 1970);
Estate of Cullison v. Commissioner, supra. As specifically
regards return, rights to income from assets shown to be
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