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

Citation69 T.C. 890
Decision Date06 March 1978
Docket NumberDocket No. 8637-74.
PartiesESTATE of ELFRIDA G. SIMMIE, DECEASED, JAMES H. HAYS, EXECUTOR, PETITIONER v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT
CourtUnited States Tax Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

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). 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 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. 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, on December 16, 1958, to take under Albert's will. Thus, it constituted, in part, consideration the trust paid to receive decedent's assets. Petitioner states that use of the 1971 6-percent estate tax table has no bearing on decedent's use of the 1958 gift tax table which was used to calculate the amount of her gift to the trust. While it is true that use of the 1971 table does not affect the amount of gift tax owed in 1958, this is irrelevant to the issue presented here. Using the 1971 6-percent table increases the value of the life estate decedent received over the value derived by using the 1958 gift tax table which was initially used in valuing decedent's gift to the trust. In this case its use would eliminate any gift element from being included in the decedent's estate under section 2036(a).3

For years ending on or before December 31, 1976, gifts were taxed at a progressive rate, approximately three-fourths the rate imposed upon estates. Additionally, a donor had a lifetime gift tax exemption of $30,000, sec. 2521, a $3,000 annual exclusion per donee, sec. 2503(b), and his gross estate would not include taxable gifts made prior to his death, with certain exceptions (such as in sec. 2036(a)),4 thereby effectively permitting splitting of the progressive tax on transfers. We believe that for those transfers subject to section 2036(a), Congress evinced a desire to retain the property in the estate and to thereby tax the property at estate tax rates.

In 1958, decedent made total gifts of $50,126.14. After subtracting the $30,000 specific exemption and $6,000 for two $3,000 annual exclusions, decedent made a total of $14,126.14 of taxable gifts for the year on which gift tax in the amount of $715.41 was imposed. The actual value of the gift in issue here at the time of transfer in 1958 was $16,043.25 (value of remainder interest surrendered of $84,366.26 less the value of life estate received of $68,323.04). Thus, the total gift tax paid in 1958 on the transfer was only $259.95—-

+------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦$16,043 Section 2036(a) transfer                     ¦      ¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦                                                     ¦x $715¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦$44,126 taxable gifts plus $30,000 specific exemption¦      ¦
                +------------------------------------------------------------+
                

If we were to adopt petitioner's computations, this is the total amount of tax to be paid on the transfer. Thus, adoption of petitioner's argument would in this case eliminate the impact of section 2036(a) and would tax the transfer in 1958 as a gift rather than in 1971 as part of decedent's estate.

We are further persuaded that the 31;2-percent table should be used after noting the comparable gift tax table, sec. 25.2512-9, Gift Tax Regs. This table is used for transfers after December 31, 1970, and is identical actuarily to section 20.2031-10, Estate Tax Regs. To hold for petitioner would do harm to the concept that the estate tax and gift tax are designed to work in harmony, Harris v. Commissioner, 340 U.S. 106 (1950); Commissioner v. Wemyss, 324 U.S. 303 (1945); Merrill v. Fahs, 324 U.S 308 (1945). Therefore, we hold that for purposes of section 2043, valuation must be made at the date of transfer in 1958 and not at the date of death in 1971. This means that the 31; 2-percent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Girard Trust Bank v. United States
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • 18 Julio 1979
    ...as long as the bonds were owned by the decedent at the time of his death. Rev.Proc. 69-18, 1969-2 C.B. 300; see also Estate of Simmie v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 890 (1978). We also agree with plaintiffs that when flower bonds are surrendered in payment of taxes, and accepted as such, that con......
  • Garrett v. Commissioner
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • 23 Febrero 1994
    ...Estate Tax Regs., nearest to the actual age of the measuring life (petitioner) at the time of sale. Cf. Estate of Simmie v. Commissioner [Dec. 35,021], 69 T.C. 890, 892-894 (1978), affd. [80-2 USTC ¶ 13,377] 632 F.2d 93 (9th Cir. 1980). Petitioner was 51 years, 11 months, and 30 days old on......
  • Schwartz v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue , Docket Nos. 7087-73—-7089-73.
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • 6 Marzo 1978
  • Pfohl v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Pfohl), Docket No. 10823-76.
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • 7 Agosto 1978
    ...part thereof, were to be used to pay estate taxes. Presumably such use turns upon the outcome of this proceeding. Cf. Estate of Simmie v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 890 (1978). Any problem which might inhere in this situation can be taken care of in the Rule 155 computation by appropriate action......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT