- 33 -
nonincome producing, see Maryland Natl. Bank v. United States,
609 F.2d 1078, 1081 (4th Cir. 1979); Berzon v. Commissioner,
supra at 531-532; Stark v. United States, 477 F.2d 131, 132-133
(8th Cir. 1973), or to be subject to depletion prior to
expiration of the term interest, see Froh v. Commissioner, supra
at 5, have been held properly valued apart from the tables. In
contrast, where known facts failed to establish a basis for
concluding that a previous average rate of return would remain
constant into the future, even a marked difference between past
experience and the prescribed rate has not justified an alternate
methodology. See Vernon v. Commissioner, supra at 490; Estate of
Christ v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. at 537-542. With respect to
mortality, a known fatal condition leading to imminent death has
been ruled to make use of actuarial tables unreasonable. See
Estate of Butler v. Commissioner, 18 T.C. 914, 919-920 (1952);
Estate of Jennings v. Commissioner, 10 T.C. 323, 327-328 (1948);
cf. Bank of Calif. v. United States, supra at 760; Continental
Ill. Natl. Bank & Trust Co. v. United States, supra at 593-594.
At the same time, the courts repeatedly have emphasized the
limited nature of these exceptions and the important role played
by the actuarial tables. See Bank of Calif. v. United States,
supra at 760; Continental Ill. Natl. Bank & Trust Co. v. United
States, supra at 593-594. In the words of the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit: “actuarial tables provide a needed degree
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