Brafman v. United States, No. 23250.

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: TUTTLE and WISDOM, Circuit , and BREWSTER
• Citation: 384 F.2d 863
• Docket Number: No. 23250.
• Decision Date: 23 October 1967
• Parties: Carolyn BRAFMAN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

384 F.2d 863 (1967)

Carolyn BRAFMAN, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 23250.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

October 23, 1967.

Jerome J. Bornstein, Bishop, Bornstein, Turnbull & Petree, Orlando, Fla., for appellant, David Gluckman, Orlando, Fla., of counsel.

Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard M. Roberts, Act. Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Meyer Rothwacks, Joseph Kovner, Howard J. Feldman, Attys., Dept of Justice, Washington, D. C., Edward F. Boardman, U. S. Atty., Tampa, Fla., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE and WISDOM, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, District Judge.

WISDOM, Circuit Judge:

This case is before the Court on the issue of the liability of the defendant, Carolyn Lazarowitz Brafman, as an alleged transferee of the Estate of Abraham Lazarowitz, for unpaid estate taxes.¹

384 F.2d 864

Lazarowitz died on January 20, 1951. Among his assets were five insurance policies with a total face value of $100,000. These policies provided that on his death, the interest on the proceeds should be paid to his widow, during her lifetime. On her death, the daughter, Carolyn, would receive an interest in one-fifth of the proceeds.² Mrs. Lazarowitz died in December 1951. Since then Carolyn Brafman has received $6,136.23 under the policies as of the date of the judgment in the court below.

The executors of the Estate of Lazarowitz failed to file a timely estate tax return. On July 29, 1952, the executors filed a return with a check for the tax due as shown on the return. June 29, 1955, the Director of Internal Revenue notified the executors that there was a gross deficiency in taxes paid of $19,241.49, together with a penalty of twenty percent. The executors challenged the deficiency in a proceeding in the Tax Court, and the matter was settled by a written stipulation executed on June 11, 1956.³ June 20, 1956, the United States Tax Court entered a decision finding a deficiency against the estate for unpaid estate taxes in the amount of $12,235.83 and a penalty in the amount of $2,449.17. July 23, 1956, a purported assessment was levied against the Estate of Abraham Lazarowitz for the unpaid taxes, the penalty, and interest to the date of assessment. August 28, 1956, the Commissioner notified the Estate of the assessment made demand for payment. The Estate is without assets with which to pay any debts or obligations.

The United States filed this suit for collection against Carolyn Brafman, as transferee, July 23, 1962. The Government contends that her contingent interest passed to Carolyn at the time of her father's death, and that the value of the interest as of that moment is ascertainable by recognized actuarial principles based upon the joint life expectancy of Carolyn and her mother. The Government seeks to collect its assessment against Carolyn Brafman on the theory that she holds the proceeds of the policies in trust. The Government concedes that a suit against her based on her personal liability would be barred by the statute limitations. Mrs. Brafman contends that the value of her contingent interest at the date of the decedent's death was too speculative to be ascertainable. She denies that the payments she receives are subject to a trust for the payment of the estate tax. The district court entered judgment for the Government for $6,136.23 Mrs. Brafman had already received plus $3,933.70 withheld by the insurance company. The Court held that future amounts receivable by Mrs. Brafman must be turned over to the United States until the entire tax deficiency is extinguished.

We do not reach the complex and tantalizing issue of a trust-fund theory of transferee liability for the transfer of a contingent insurance interest. The threshold issue of the validity of the assessment is crucial. We reverse on the ground that a valid assessment against the transferor's estate was not made, because of an assessment officer's failure

384 F.2d 865

to sign the certificate of assessment. The Government's claim against the transferee is proscribed by the statute of limitations governing this action

* * * * * *

For a tax to be collected upon any deficiency, an assessment must be made against the taxpayer within three years after his return is filed. Int.Rev.Code of 1939, § 874 (§ 6501 of the 1954 Code). The mailing of a ninety-day letter of deficiency or the filing of any court action will suspend the running of the statute of limitations, and the time will not begin to run again until sixty days from the entry of final judgment of that court or until ninety days following the mailing of the letter of deficiency if no proceedings are begun. See Int.Rev.Code of 1954, § 6213. In the case of a transferee, a separate section provides that the assessment must be filed against the transferee within one year after the expiration of the period of limitation for assessment against the original transferor. Int.Rev.Code of 1939, § 900(b) (1) (§ 6901(c) (1) of the 1954 Code)

If the estate is not assessed within the statutory period there can be no transferee liability. United States v. Updike, 1930, 281 U.S. 489, 50 S.Ct. 367, 74 L.Ed. 984. For the Government to collect any tax from the transferee, Mrs. Brafman, a valid assessment must have been made against the estate of the transferor, Abraham Lazarowitz, by September 28, 1957.

There is no disagreement that if the assessment against the estate was made on July 23, 1956, as the Government argues and the documents apparently indicate, the assessment of the transferor was timely. Mrs. Brafman contends, however, that no valid assessment was made on July 23, 1956, because the assessment certificate was not signed.

Section 6203 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 specifies that an assessment⁴ shall be made by recording the liability of the taxpayer in the office of the Secretary or his delegate in accordance with rules or regulations prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate.

The Treasury Regulations set forth the procedures governing the assessment process as follows:

The District Director shall appoint one or more assessment officers, and the assessment shall be made by an assessment officer signing the summary record of assessment. The summary record, through supporting records, shall provide identification of the taxpayer, the character of the liability assessed, the taxable period if applicable, and the amount of the assessment. The amount of the assessment shall in the case of tax shown on a return by the taxpayer, be the amount so shown, and in all other cases the amount of the assessment shall be the amount shown on the supporting list or record. The date of the assessment is the date the summary record is signed by an assessment officer. * * * Treas. Reg. § 301.6203-1 (1955) (emphasis added.)

The assessment certificate involved in this case, a photostated copy of which is in the record, is not signed by an assessment officer or by any other official. The certificate refers to July 23, 1956, but shows that it was "prepared" August 1, 1956. Apparently this is the

384 F.2d 866

date on which the assessment was to be formally certified, as it appears twice in the certification portion of the form. Since the certificate lacks the requisite signature, it cannot constitute a valid assessment

We are not moved by the Government's argument that the assessment was valid and effective on July 23rd because it is certified for authenticity under the seal of the United States Treasury. There is no question as to the authenticity of the document or its admissibility into evidence.⁵ But authenticity of the certificate cannot be equated with validity of the assessment on the alleged...