- 6 -
concern the question whether the values of their trusts should be
included in their gross estates for purposes of computing Federal
estate taxes. As indicated, respondent objects to the
applications.
It is our view that Rule 82 was not intended to be invoked
under the abstract circumstances of these cases. The facts here
are clearly distinguishable from those in GlaxoSmithKline
Holdings (Americas) Inc. v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 1 (2001). In
GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, the examination of the taxpayer was
ongoing. Attempts were made to resolve differences through the
Advance Pricing Agreement Program and through the Internal
Revenue Service’s Office of Appeals. The taxpayer further
requested relief from double taxation under the so-called
competent authority process. At the time of making the
application to perpetuate testimony, the taxpayer anticipated
that the competent authority process could be protracted and that
it would be 4 or 5 years before the case might proceed to trial.
The Court concluded in GlaxoSmithKline Holdings that there was a
reasonable expectation that the applicants would be adversaries
in an action cognizable in the Court and a significant risk that
critical testimony might be lost.
By contrast, the applications in these cases involve the
possible estate taxes of persons who are still alive. The only
certainty in these cases is that the applicants will die someday.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011