Bongard: Tax Court Incorrectly Expands Sec. 2036(a)s Application footnotes

1 See Francois L. Church’s Estate, 335 US 632 (1949).

2 Walter A. May v. D.B. Hiener, 281 US 238 (1930), overruled by Church’s Estate, note 1 supra.

3 For a discussion, see Justice White’s dissent in Marian A. Byrum, 408 US 125 (1972).

4 Est. of Dorothy Morganson Schauerhamer, TC Memo 1997-242, Est. of Charles E. Reichardt, 114 TC 144 (2000), Est. of Morton B. Harper, TC Memo 2002-121, and Est. of Albert Strangi, TC Memo 2003-145, appeal pending.

5 For an excellent discussion, see Mulligan, “Courts Err in Applying Section 2036(a) to Limited Partnerships,” 30 ETPL 486 (October 2003).

6 David A. Kimbell, Sr., 371 F3d 257 (5th Cir. 2004); for a discussion, see Eyberg and Raasch, “FLP Planning after Strangi, Kimbell and Thompson,” 35 The Tax Adviser 750 (December 2004).

7 Wayne C. Bongard, 124 TC No. 8 (2005).

8 WBC issued four types of units: class A governance, class A financial, class B governance and class B financial units; only the class A units carried voting rights.

9 By the time of trial, the taxpayer and the IRS had agreed to value the Empak shares at $32.24 each, which would have further increased the gross estate by $19 million.

10 In an en banc decision, the full court reviews the decision.

11 Byrum, note 3 supra.