Davis v. United States

2006 DNH 007

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: January 27, 2006
• Docket: Civil No. 04-cv-273-SM, 2007 DNH 077P
• Status: Published

Opinion

Davis v. United States 04-CV-273-SM 01/27/06 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mary C. Davis, Executrix of the Estate of Kenneth Freeman, Plaintiff

v. Civil No. 0 4-cv-2 73-SM Opinion No. 2006 DNH 007 United States of America. Defendant

O R D E R

Defendant moves the court to reconsider its order dated

December 19, 2005. In support of that motion, defendant asserts

that:

Since all "ordinary annuity interests" within the meaning of Treas. Reg. § 20.7520-3(b)(1)(i)(A) must be valued according to the annuity tables, and since the parties have stipulated that the interest to be valued is such an interest, the regulations in conjunction with the stipulation require that the interest be valued using the tables.

Defendant's memorandum (document no. 24) at 2 (emphasis in

original). In essence, defendant says the law mandates the use

of the annuity tables, even when those tables yield a patently

unreasonable and unrealistic valuation. For the reasons set

forth in its original order, the court disagrees. Contrary to defendant's suggestion, the court has not

determined that the applicable Treasury Regulation is '■'invalid."

Rather, consistent with the view embraced by several courts

(including those cited by the government), it concluded that the

law does not require blind adherence to the regulations when

doing so would lead to an unreasonable or unrealistic result -

hardly a novel interpretation of the applicable law. The

paramount goal of the Tax Code is, after all, to determine the

"fair market value" of the asset in question (or, at a minimum, a

reasonable approximation of its fair market value).

Defendant's motion for reconsideration (document no. 23) is

granted in part, and denied in part. To the extent it moves the

court to reconsider its prior order, the motion is granted. But,

having reconsidered its order dated December 19, 2005, the court

declines defendant's invitation to mandate the use of the annuity

tables until it can determine whether those tables would yield a

valuation that is unreasonable or unrealistic under the facts of

this particular case.

2 The court has, however, reissued its original order to

correct three typographical errors (i.e., references to yy20

C.F.R." that should, instead, have been yy26 C.F.R.") .

SO ORDERED.

Xteven Jc McAuliffe Chief Judge

January 27, 2006

cc: Peter S. Black, Esq. Valerie Wright, Esq. William C. Knowles, Esq. Stephen T. Lyons, Esq.