- 9 -
6901(a) would be “superfluous and wholly unnecessary.” Id.
Thus, the Court of Appeals concluded that the liability under
section 6324(a)(2) is an independent personal obligation that may
be collected in a manner similar to the collection of tax
liabilities, pursuant to section 6901(a). Id. at 1542.
Further, the Court of Appeals concluded that section 6901(a)
authorized the imposition of interest on the obligation of the
transferee under section 6601 as if it were a tax liability and
that the limitation imposed under section 6324(a)(2) applied only
to the underlying tax obligation, not on the independent interest
obligation imposed on the taxpayer under section 6324(a)(2) by
way of sections 6901(a) and 6601(a). Id. The Court of Appeals
held that this liability arose under section 6324(a)(2) when the
tax was not paid by the estate and the taxpayer was in possession
of the transferred assets; i.e., when the estate tax return was
due. Id. From a policy standpoint, the Court of Appeals noted:
This result comports with economic reality. The
limitation of section 6324(a)(2) was designed to prevent a
transferee from being liable for the estate taxes of another
beyond the benefit he received from the estate. In the case
of the disputed interest, however, Baptiste has had the use
and enjoyment of the $50,000 from the time he received it
until the present. There is no unfairness in requiring him
to pay for this use, and the denial of its use to the
government. Baptiste has had the opportunity to invest and
earn a return on the $50,000 similar to that which he is now
obligated to pay the government, and the government has been
refused that opportunity. To hold otherwise would create a
system which encourages transferees to retain assets of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011