- 16 -
facts before us. The Court in Estate of La Meres discussed
“undue hardship” in the context of a section 6166 election and a
closely held business, specifically addressing an example in the
regulations. See sec. 20.6161-1(a)(2)(ii), Example (1), Estate
Tax Regs. Undue hardship may exist where a farm or other closely
held business constitutes a significant portion of an estate and
sufficient funds could be raised from “other sources” to pay the
estate tax if a section 6161 extension to pay were granted. Id.
This is not the case here.
First, the example in section 20.6161-1(a)(2)(ii), Estate
Tax Regs., addresses situations where a taxpayer faces the
cessation and sale of a farm or other closely held business in
order to pay the Federal estate tax but does not meet the
threshold 35-percent requirement in section 6166(a)(1).8 In our
case, the estate had no going concern of its own, and hence
whether the estate might qualify under section 6166 is not at
issue. Second, Mr. Renbarger had no plan to raise money from
“other” sources. Mr. Renbarger specifically stated that he would
not grant the personal guaranty he claimed was necessary to
obtain a loan and that he was not willing to sell the estate’s
liquid assets. Instead, Mr. Renbarger requested an extension of
time to pay so he could continue advertising for sale precisely
8An estate may elect to pay its Federal estate tax liability
in installments if the value of a closely held business exceeds
35 percent of the adjusted gross estate. Sec. 6166(a)(1).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011