LEON ROSENFIELD, AS ADMINISTRATOR, D.B.N.C.T.A. OF ESTATE OF GEORGE D. BEASTON, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that an estate tax valuation election, made with full disclosure of facts, is binding even if based on a mistake of consequences.
The original executor elected to value estate assets one year after death. The administrator sought a refund, arguing the election was made under a mi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Internal Revenue Code Of 1939 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Internal Revenue Code of 1939 permits the representative of an estate the election of evaluating the assets in the gross estate either as of the date of death or one year after death. 26 U.S.C. § 811 (1952 ed.). Section 81.11 of Treasury Regulation 105 provides that “In no case may the election be exercised, or a previous election changed, after the expiration of the time for the filing of the return.”
The administrator d. b. n. c. t. a. in this case seeks a refund of additional estate tax assessed by the Commissioner. The additional tax was the result of the original executor’s apparent election manifested on the estate’s return to have the assets valued one year from date of death. It is the administrator’s argument here that the apparent election was not binding and irrevocable because it was made upon a mistake as to the consequences of that election.
The district court entered judgment for defendant, relying on Section 81.11 of Treasury Regulation 105 and analogous tax cases denying the right to change the election after date for filing has passed. D.C.E.D.Pa.1957, 156 F.Supp. 780. The election here was made upon a full disclosure of facts. It is therefore binding, and we can add nothing to the opinion of the district court.
• The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raymond v. United States, 269 F.2d 181 (6th Cir. 1959)
-
Nat'l Lead Co. v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 336 F.2d 134 (2d Cir. 1964)
-
Gimbel Bros., Inc. v. The United States, 535 F.2d 14 (Ct. Cl. 1976)