- 20 -
due as a result thereof.9 Moreover, the executrix could have
filed an application for a 6-month extension of the due date of
the estate tax return (as well as an extension to pay the tax),
allowing her additional time to compile information regarding the
assets of decedent's estate.
Rather than following any such reasonable and prudent course
of action, the executrix made no apparent attempt to comply with
the estate tax return filing and estate tax payment requirements
of the Internal Revenue Code. Instead, the executrix chose to
disregard these requirements until some 10 years after the due
date of the return, thus failing to discharge her nondelegable
duty. See Estate of Geraci v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1973-94,
affd. 502 F.2d 1148 (6th Cir. 1974). Moreover, the executrix did
not appear at the trial of this case; therefore, the record is
devoid of her testimony regarding her knowledge or actions
surrounding the estate in the more than 10 years that followed
decedent's death. "The rule is well established that the failure
of a party to introduce evidence within his possession, and which
if true, would be favorable to him, gives rise to the presumption
that if produced it would be unfavorable." Wichita Terminal
Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C. 1158, 1165 (1946), affd. 162
F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1947); see also Estate of Fox v.
9 If this procedure had been followed, it is obvious that
the bulk of the estate tax owed would have been paid on or before
the due date of the return.
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