- 28 -
transfer tax base. If, as the estate suggests, the gross-up rule
results in a smaller increase to the gross estate of a married
donor who used gift-splitting techniques than to the gross estate
of a single donor who made identical gifts but lacked any gift-
splitting option, it is only because the married donor has in
fact paid fewer gift taxes with respect to the gifts.
Consequently, fewer assets having been removed from the married
donor’s transfer tax base, a correspondingly smaller gross-up of
the married donor’s gross estate is required to counteract this
erosion of the married donor’s transfer tax base, consistent with
the legislative purpose of section 2035(c).
In sum, we are unpersuaded by the estate’s argument that the
coordination of sections 2035(c) and 2513, as described in the
legislative history, results in preferential treatment to married
donors.16
16 In any event, if we were to undertake an analysis of the
differing tax treatments that might obtain for married donors and
single donors as the result of interaction of sec. 2035(c) and
other Code provisions, it is not apparent why we should limit
this analysis, as the estate does, to the interaction of secs.
2035(c) and 2513, without considering comprehensively the
possible interactions of sec. 2035(c) and the myriad other Code
sections that differentiate married from unmarried individuals.
Cf. Ingalls v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 751 (1963) (upholding pre-
1981 version of sec. 2035(a) as constitutional when applied to a
widow whose gift tax exemption, used to reduce gift taxes on a
split gift, was not reinstated–-and therefore effectively
wasted–-when her husband’s portion was included in his gross
estate), affd. 336 F.2d 874 (4th Cir. 1964).
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011