- 22 -
substantial, if not strict compliance. * * * [Taylor v.
Commissioner, 67 T.C. 1071, 1077-1078 (1977); citations
omitted.]
Given the antiabuse rationale behind section 2055(e)(3) (as
explained in the legislative history previously discussed), we
conclude that Congress intended compliance with either section
2055(e)(3)(c)(ii) or (iii) as a precondition to effecting a
reformation of a trust to satisfy section 2055(e)(2). Thus, the
foregoing requirements relate to the substance or essence of the
statute. We accordingly conclude that section 2055(e)(3)
requires strict, not merely substantial, compliance.
There was no strict compliance here. Moreover, we are not
persuaded that even substantial compliance occurred. The
estate's contention that the return statement should
substantially satisfy the requirement for prompt initiation of
reformation proceedings is unpersuasive. While the
executor/trustee may have acted in good faith, the return
statement did not put respondent on notice of the trust's defects
before audit. The return statement is fairly read as asserting
that the trust at issue was a CRUT, as it described the
charitable remainder as the "Balance that is residue following 10
year term certain charitable remainder unitrust * * * where * * *
the Trustee holds * * * pursuant to the terms and conditions of
I.R.C. Sec. 664 and related provisions". (Emphasis added.) None
of the efforts to amend the trust, either the unexecuted attempts
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