Estate of Algerine Allen Smith - Page 15




                                       - 15 -                                         
                                       OPINION                                        
               The Internal Revenue Code imposes a Federal estate tax on              
          the transfer of the taxable estate of a decedent who is a citizen           
          or resident of the United States.  Secs. 2001 and 2002.  Section            
          2053(a)(3) allows a deduction from the gross estate for claims              
          against the estate that are allowable by the laws of the                    
          jurisdiction under which the estate is administered.  The issue             
          for decision in the instant case is the value of Exxon’s claim              
          against the estate as of decedent’s date of death for purposes of           
          determining the amount of the estate’s section 2053(a)(3)                   
          deduction.                                                                  
          Burden of Proof                                                             
               Before the trial on remand, the estate filed a Motion to               
          Place Burden of Proof on Respondent.  The estate argued that the            
          Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected respondent’s                
          presumption of correctness and that the burden had shifted to               
          respondent to prove the existence and amount of the deficiency.             
          We denied the estate’s motion prior to the trial on remand.                 
               The Court of Appeals said nothing about rejecting                      
          respondent’s presumption of correctness.  Rather, the Court of              
          Appeals said:  “it is incumbent on each party to supply the Tax             
          Court with relevant evidence of predeath facts and occurrences              
          supporting the value of the Exxon claim advocated by that party.”           
          Estate of Smith v. Commissioner, supra at 526.  As explained                






Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011