Heyen v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Owen)
| Decision Date | 20 April 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 13004–90.,13004–90. |
| Citation | 104 T.C. No. 25,104 T.C. 498 |
| Parties | ESTATE OF Jack Brown OWEN, Deceased, Mary Ann Heyen, Executrix, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
John T. Suter, Hutchinson, KS, for petitioner.
C. Glenn McLoughlin, Oklahoma City, OK, for respondent.
Respondent determined a deficiency in Federal estate tax and additions to tax under sections 6653(a) 1 (negligence, etc.), 6653(b) (fraud), and 6660 (valuation understatement) against petitioner as follows:
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦¦Deficiency ¦$101,960.00 ¦
++-----------+----------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦¦Sec. 6653 ¦3,933.62 ¦
¦¦(a)(1)(A) ¦ ¦
++-----------+----------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦¦Sec. 6653 ¦50 percent of the interest on $78,672.45, the part of the ¦
¦¦(a)(1)(B) ¦underpayment attributable to negligence, etc. ¦
++-----------+----------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦¦Sec. 6653 ¦9,287.71 ¦
¦¦(b)(1)(A) ¦ ¦
++-----------+----------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦¦Sec. 6653 ¦50 percent of the interest on $12,383.62, the part of the ¦
¦¦(b)(1)(B) ¦underpayment attributable to fraud ¦
++-----------+----------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦¦Sec. 6660 ¦7,552.00 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In the answer, respondent concedes the fraud additions to tax, and asserts increased additions to tax on account of negligence, etc., for each of the items that had given rise to the fraud additions to tax in the notice of deficiency.
After concessions,2 the issues for decision are as follows:
(1) Whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 6660.
(2) Whether petitioner is entitled to a credit under section 2011(a) for State death taxes on account of decedent's 1984 and 1986 gifts.
(3) Whether decedent's 1984 and 1986 gifts are to be taken into account for the purpose of computing the maximum permissible State death tax credit under section 2011(b).
Some of the facts have been stipulated; the stipulations and the stipulated exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference.
When the petition was filed in the instant case, petitioner was a Kansas estate with legal residence in St. John, Kansas. Decedent died, a resident of St. John, on October 2, 1986. Decedent's estate was probated in Stafford County, Kansas. Mary Ann Heyen (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Mary Ann), decedent's sister, is the executrix of the estate. Mary Ann was a legal resident of St. John when the petition was filed. Letters testamentary were issued to Mary Ann by the District Court of Stafford County.
Petitioner's estate tax return was timely filed on July 6, 1987.
In 1984, decedent made a gift of 15 shares of St. John National Bank stock, worth $14,810; this gift was not reported on petitioner's Federal estate tax return nor on petitioner's Kansas inheritance tax return. This gift is to be taken into account for purposes of section 2001(b) in the instant case as a component of adjusted taxable gifts.
In 1986, decedent gave 80 percent of the stock of Dominion Corp. to Mary Ann. This gift was valued at $391,865.82 on petitioner's Federal estate tax return (Sched. G—Transfers During Decedent's Life) and on petitioner's Kansas inheritance tax return, and has an adjusted taxable gift value of $381,866 (the value of the property, rounded to the nearest dollar, less the section 2503(b) $10,000 exclusion). This gift is to be taken into account for purposes of section 2001(b) in the instant case as a component of adjusted taxable gifts and not as a component of transfers during decedent's life.
Also in 1986, decedent made gifts of $8,900 in personal property and $1,550 in farm assets; these gifts were not reported on petitioner's Federal estate tax return nor on petitioner's Kansas inheritance tax return. These gifts are to be taken into account for purposes of section 2001(b) in the instant case as components of adjusted taxable gifts.
The status of these gifts is summarized in table 1.
Petitioner paid $73,545 in Kansas State inheritance tax, some portion of which is attributable to the gift of Dominion Corp. stock. On its Federal estate tax return, petitioner claimed a credit for $19,978.42 of this amount, and a credit for $55,417.55 on account of estate taxes paid by the estate of Jenny Owen, who died in 1984 ( supra note 2), leaving a net Federal estate tax of $13,854.39.
When decedent died he owned two checking accounts, as follows: St. John National Bank account # 120251 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the St. John Bank account) and First National Bank and Trust of St. John account # 35259 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the First National Bank account). After decedent's sudden death, five checks that decedent had recently written were found by the Reno County, Kansas, Sheriff's Department in a suitcase in decedent's car. Decedent had not delivered these checks. Meryle Heyen (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Meryle) is Mary Ann's husband. Brenda Heyen (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Brenda) is decedent's niece. Bill Bebee (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Bill) is Brenda's husband. These five checks are described in table 2.
The $61,000 check to Mary Ann was not honored by the First National Bank and Trust of St. John in the ordinary course of business. It was later presented anew and cashed, however, by direction of the Probate Court some months after decedent's death. The three $10,000 checks and the $61,000 check are not payments for decedent's legal obligations.
Table 3 shows the actual values of the two bank accounts as of the date of decedent's death, and the values reported on petitioner's Federal estate tax return.
The underreporting of the values of the two bank accounts, shown in table 3, resulted from petitioner's reducing the actual values of those bank accounts by the amounts of the first four checks described supra in table 2.
The amounts reported on petitioner's Federal estate tax return are the same as the amounts reported on the Inventory and Valuation filed with the District Court of Stafford County on June 19, 1987. The Inventory and Valuation further describes the bank accounts under the category All Other Personal Property, as follows:
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦¦ ¦Checking Account # 35259, First National Bank & Trust, St. ¦ ¦
¦¦6.¦John, Ks, $83,772.20 less outstanding checks of $3720.00 and ¦19,052.20¦
¦¦ ¦$61,000.00 ¦ ¦
++--+---------------------------------------------------------------+---------¦
¦¦7.¦Checking Account # 120251 St. John National Bank, St. John, Ks,¦54,516.79¦
¦¦ ¦$84,516.79 less outstanding checks of $30,000.00 ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In contrast, petitioner's Federal estate tax return shows only the net amounts and does not refer to the outstanding checks. The checks referred to in the Inventory and Valuation are the checks described supra in table 2.
During 1984 and 1985 Mary Ann and Meryle each wrote checks payable to decedent; these checks were cashed or deposited. The account on which the checks were written is titled in the names of Mary Ann, Meryle, and Brenda.
These checks are described in table 4.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of True v. Commissioner
...under section 2031 or transferred for less than adequate and full consideration under sec. 2512(b). See Estate of Owen v. Commissioner [Dec. 50,607], 104 T.C. 498, 505-506 (1995) (applying section 6660, which was the precursor of section In the cases at hand, we determine whether the percen......
-
Rochelle v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 18483–99.
...See United States v. Olympic Radio & Television, 349 U.S. 232, 236, 75 S.Ct. 733, 99 L.Ed. 1024 (1955); 1 Estate of Owen v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 498, 507–508, 1995 WL 232785 (1995) (and cases cited therein); Office of the Legislative Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, Style Manual, D......
-
Mauerman v. Commissioner
...is reviewable on an abuse-of-discretion basis. See Mauerman v. Commissioner [94-1 USTC ¶ 50,222], 22 F.3d at 1004; Estate of Owen v. Commissioner [Dec. 50,607], 104 T.C. 498, — (1995) (slip op. at 20); Estate of Jung v. Commissioner [Dec. 49,387], 101 T.C. 412, 449 (1993). To conclude that ......
-
Klaassen v. Commissioner
...if we are to construe the statute so as to override the plain meaning of the words used therein. Estate of Owen v. Commissioner [Dec. 50,607], 104 T.C. 498, 507-508 (1995), and cases cited therein; Huntsberry v. Commissioner [Dec. 41,632], 83 T.C. 742, 747-748 "The statutory scheme governin......
-
New York To Drastically Change 'Gift Tax' Rule
...for state death taxes: Second National Bank of New Haven v. United States, 442 F. 2d 40 (2d Civ. 1970); Estate of Owen v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 498 (1995). Both cases held that the phrase "included in the gross estate" required that the property upon which the state tax is levied must be i......