- 18 - exceeded $500,000, i.e., the filing threshold amount, even without inclusion of the assets involved in the Thomas Trust dispute.7 Therefore, the Court cannot accept the estate's contention that the outcome of the common pleas court litigation would have determined whether an estate tax return was required to be filed. On this record, it appears that a Federal estate tax return would have been required to be filed even if decedent's estate had received none of the assets of the Thomas Trust involved in the litigation. Thus, the outcome of the common pleas court case would have had no effect on the necessity for filing a return.8 Moreover, when eventually filed, the estate tax return reported a $2,047,294.06 gross estate at the date of decedent's death. The gross estate consisted of $557,180 in real estate, $771,109.47 in stocks and bonds, $264,330.53 in mortgages, notes, 7 Indeed, just as the Supreme Court stated in United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. at 252, that it requires no special training or effort to ascertain a deadline and make sure that it is met, it requires no more special training nor effort to ascertain the dollar value threshold for filing a return. In any event, lack of knowledge that a return is required to be filed or of the due date thereof does not constitute reasonable cause. Cronin's Estate v. Commissioner, 164 F.2d 561, 566 (6th Cir. 1947), affg. on this issue 7 T.C. 1403, 1414 (1946). 8 The Court finds it also notable that the suit regarding the Thomas Trust was not filed by the executrix until 4-1/2 years after the due date of the return, and that the estate tax return was not filed until 2 years following the final disposition of the Thomas Trust case.Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011