- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011