Estate of Concetta H. Rector, Deceased, John M. Rector, II, Co-Executor and Co-Trustee - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                         
          accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).1  Following                 
          concessions, we decide whether Concetta H. Rector (decedent)                
          retained the possession or enjoyment of, or the right to the                
          income from, property transferred to Rector Limited Partnership             
          (RLP) for purposes of section 2036(a)(1).  We hold she did.2  We            
          also decide whether decedent’s estate (estate) is liable for an             
          accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) for failure to               
          include as adjusted taxable gifts on the Federal estate tax                 
          return prior gifts of $595,000.  We hold the estate liable for              
          the penalty.                                                                
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT                                    
          1.  Preface                                                                 
               Some facts were stipulated and are so found.  The                      
          stipulation of facts and the accompanying exhibits are                      
          incorporated herein by this reference.  Decedent was a resident             
          of the State of Nevada when she died testate on January 11, 2002,           
          at the age of 95.  Decedent’s son, John M. Rector II (John                  
          Rector), is coexecutor of decedent’s estate.  When the petition             
          was filed, John Rector resided in Sonoma County, California.                
               1 Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the            
          applicable versions of the Internal Revenue Code, Rule references           
          are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and dollar            
          amounts are rounded.                                                        
               2 Given this holding, we do not consider respondent’s other            
          arguments in support of respondent’s determination that the value           
          of the property is includable in decedent’s gross estate.                   





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008