- 17 -
other than his (or the estate’s) payment of his gift tax
liabilities.10
Fourth, the parties have stipulated that the donee children
paid none of decedent’s 1991 and 1992 gift tax liabilities–-a
fact specifically noted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit in the refund litigation. Estate of Armstrong v.
United States, 277 F.3d at 496 (“the donee children have paid no
gift taxes”). The donee children’s mere conditional promise to
pay certain additional gift taxes that decedent might be
determined to owe does not reduce the amount of decedent’s gift
taxes included in the gross estate under section 2035(c).
Fifth, in any event (and unsurprisingly in light of our
previous observations) the estate has set forth no particular
facts to show that decedent or the estate received or was
entitled to receive “consideration” for payment of decedent’s
1991 and 1992 gift taxes; the estate’s mere allegations in this
10 If we were to suspend disbelief and assume, for the sake
of argument, that decedent received valuable “consideration” in
exchange for his agreeing to pay his own gift tax liabilities, it
would logically follow that decedent’s gross estate should be
increased to reflect the date-of-death value of this alleged
consideration, thus offsetting the tax benefit that the estate
seeks to obtain by netting this “consideration” against the gift
taxes otherwise includable in the gross estate under sec.
2035(c).
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011