Estate of Burton W. Kanter, Deceased, Joshua S. Kanter, Independent Administrator - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         
          regarding the purpose and effect of section 7486 is pertinent to            
          the resolution of the estate’s motion for abatement of                      
          assessments.  In particular, we stated:                                     
               The language of section 7486 provides for abatement and                
               refund of the “amount of the deficiency determined” by                 
               this Court that has been “disallowed in whole or in                    
               part by the court of review”, regardless of whether the                
               taxpayer files a claim for relief.  The statute simply                 
               acts as a procedural device ensuring that the                          
               Commissioner follows a decision of the court of review                 
               in situations where it can be ascertained that all or a                
               part of the amount of the deficiency determined by this                
               Court was disallowed.  Where the court of review                       
               reverses and remands but does not indicate that any                    
               ascertainable “amount” of the previously determined                    
               deficiency has been precluded, it cannot be said that                  
               the court of review has “disallowed in whole or in                     
               part” the “amount of the deficiency determined by the                  
               Tax Court.”                                                            
                    In the instant case, the Court of Appeals reversed                
               and remanded with instructions regarding the proper                    
               evidence to consider for valuing Exxon's claim against                 
               the estate.  The Court of Appeals made no finding                      
               regarding the correct value of the Exxon claim, nor did                
               it preclude an ultimate finding of value that would                    
               result in the same deficiency amount contained in our                  
               prior decision.  The Court of Appeals simply held that                 
               post-death events, such as the settlement of the Exxon                 
               claim, should not be considered in making the valuation                
               determination.  The Court of Appeals remanded with                     
               instructions to make the valuation based on facts that                 
               existed on the date of decedent's death.  The amount of                
               the prior deficiency determination was not disallowed                  
               in whole or in part.                                                   
          Id. at 345.                                                                 
               Our interpretation of section 7486 as articulated in Estate            
          of Smith v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. at 345, is consistent with the           
          interpretation of that provision by the Court of Appeals for the            
          Seventh Circuit in Tyne v. Commissioner, 1969-2 USTC par. 9508              





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011