Hays v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Simmie), Docket No. 8637-74.

• Court: United States Tax Court
• Writing for the Court: IRWIN
• Citation: 69 T.C. 890
• Parties: ESTATE of ELFRIDA G. SIMMIE, DECEASED, JAMES H. HAYS, EXECUTOR, PETITIONER v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT
• Docket Number: Docket No. 8637-74.
• Decision Date: 06 March 1978

69 T.C. 890

ESTATE of ELFRIDA G. SIMMIE, DECEASED, JAMES H. HAYS, EXECUTOR, PETITIONER
v.
COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT

Docket No. 8637-74.

United States Tax Court

Filed March 6, 1978.

Decedent transferred her interest in community property into a trust established under her husband's will in exchange for a life interest in that trust. The transferred interest is taxable in decedent's estate under sec. 2036(a), I.R.C. 1954, and the value of the life estate comprised, in part, consideration received by decedent under sec. 2043 for the transfer of her interest. Held, the life estate is valued using the table in the Estate Tax Regs. in effect at the date of exchange rather than at the date of decedent's death.

Petitioner used “flower bonds” to pay the estate tax reflected on decedent's estate tax return. Those bonds not used to pay the tax were included in decedent's estate at their fair market value and later sold. After the sale, a deficiency was determined and the bonds sold could have been used at their higher par value to pay the estate tax. Held, bonds valued for estate tax purposes based on the estate as ultimately determined, not on the estate as valued in the estate tax return, thus, they are includable at the par value. Estate of Fried v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 805 (1970), affd. 445 F.2d 979 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied404 U.S. 1016 (1972).

[69 T.C. 890]

Michael L. Curtis, for the petitioner.

Peter D. Bakutes, for the respondent.

OPINION IRWIN, Judge:

Respondent determined a deficiency of $21,783.72 in the estate tax of the Estate of Elfrida G. Simmie (hereafter decedent) who died on February 25, 1971. The parties

[69 T.C. 891]

are agreed that there is an error in the factor used in calculating the deficiency.

There are two issues for determination:

(1) Whether the valuation of decedent's life interest should be computed with the life estate valuation table in effect at the date she elected to take the life estate under her husband's will or with the life estate valuation table in effect at the date of her death; and

(2) Whether unused flower bonds¹ which were sold between the date the return was filed and the date the deficiency was determined should be valued for estate tax purposes at par value rather than at sales (market) price.

All the facts have been stipulated and are incorporated herein by this reference.

Decedent's husband, Albert T. Simmie (hereafter Albert), died testate on September 26, 1957. Under the provisions of Albert's will decedent was required to take outright her one-half interest in the community property or to take under the will. Following the instructions of the will, decedent, on December 16, 1958, elected to transfer one-half of her half interest (25 percent) in the community property into a trust established under the will which included all of Albert's half of the property. Decedent's transfer was made in return for income for life from Albert's one-half interest.

The parties stipulated that the transfer by decedent of her property into the trust established under Albert's will in exchange for a life interest in that trust was a section 2036(a)² transfer. The parties further agreed that the income earned by Albert's estate prior to decedent's election plus the value of decedent's life estate comprised the “consideration received” under section 2043 by decedent for relinquishing part of her property.

At the time of her death, decedent owned flower bonds with a par value of $145,000. Bonds in the amount of $126,500 were used to pay on the $126,813.37 estate tax shown on the return. The balance of $18,500 was sold by petitioner after the estate tax return was filed but before the deficiency was determined.

[69 T.C. 892]

The parties stipulated that the selling price of the balance on decedent's date of death was $13,505.

Valuation of the Life Estate

In deciding this narrow issue we are asked to choose between two Treasury Department tables to value the life estate decedent received as consideration for contributing to the trust established under Albert's will.

Respondent contends that section 20.2031-7, Estate Tax Regs., which was in effect on the date of decedent's election in 1958 and which provides a 31;2-percent table for the valuation of annuities, life estates, terms for years, remainders, and reversions “For estates of decedent's dying on or before December 31, 1970” should be used. Petitioner urges that section 20.2031-10, Estate Tax Regs., which was in effect in 1971 when decedent died and which uses a 6-percent table for the same purposes when the decedent dies after December 31, 1970, be used.

By operation of sections 2036(a) and 2043(a), the amount decedent originally transferred less the value of the life estate received is treated as a gift to the trust and is returned to decedent's estate. The 6-percent table would assign a higher value to decedent's life estate thereby reducing the amount returned to her estate.

The contentions of the parties in this case are quite simple. Respondent contends that the 31;2-percent table should be used to value the gift for both gift tax and estate tax purposes even though decedent died after December 31, 1970. Petitioner agrees that the valuation of the life estate for gift tax purposes occurs at the date decedent elected to take under the will. Petitioner, however, reads section 20.2031-7 and section 20.2031-10, Estate Tax Regs., literally and concludes that the express wording compels the estate of one dying after December 31, 1970, to use table 20.2031-10, Estate Tax Regs., when valuing the life estate.

The life estate in decedent was established when she opted,...