- 21 -
substantial compliance. According to the estate, the trustee
disclosed in the return statement his intention to follow and be
bound by the requirements of a CRUT in operating the trust, the
payments to the noncharitable beneficiaries in fact conformed
with CRUT requirements, and the 2003 amendment modified the trust
so that it complied with CRUT requirements. Thus, the estate
argues, the essential purpose of the 90-day rule in section
2055(e)(3)(C)(iii)--which is to require taxpayers to initiate
reformation before being contacted by the Commissioner--has been
satisfied by the return statement, and the eventual amendment of
the trust in 2003 should be treated as timely, especially given
the fact that the trustee in fact adhered to CRUT payout
requirements in the interim. The foregoing should therefore be
treated as satisfying section 2055(e)(3) under the doctrine of
substantial compliance, in the estate's view.
We disagree. This Court's application of the substantial
compliance doctrine has been summarized as follows:
The test for determining the applicability of the
substantial compliance doctrine has been the subject of
a myriad of cases. The critical question to be
answered is whether the requirements relate "to the
substance or essence of the statute." If so, strict
adherence to all statutory and regulatory requirements
is a precondition to an effective election. On the
other hand, if the requirements are procedural or
directory in that they are not of the essence of the
thing to be done but are given with a view to the
orderly conduct of business, they may be fulfilled by
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