Estate of McNamee v. Commissioner

1994 T.C. Memo. 322, 68 T.C.M. 86, 1994 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 329
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJuly 14, 1994
DocketDocket No. 8789-91
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1994 T.C. Memo. 322 (Estate of McNamee v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Estate of McNamee v. Commissioner, 1994 T.C. Memo. 322, 68 T.C.M. 86, 1994 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 329 (tax 1994).

Opinion

ESTATE OF CAROL M. McNAMEE, DECEASED, ANTHONY C. MORICI, JR., EXECUTOR, AND THE CAROL M. McNAMEE TRUST AGREEMENT, DATED OCTOBER 12, 1981, ANTHONY C. MORICI, JR., AND EILEEN McNAMEE, TRUSTEES, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Estate of McNamee v. Commissioner
Docket No. 8789-91
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1994-322; 1994 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 329; 68 T.C.M. (CCH) 86;
July 14, 1994, Filed

*329 Decision will be entered for respondent.

For petitioner: David W. Hettig and Charles C. Marson.
For respondent: Stephen R. Asmussen.
RAUM

RAUM

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RAUM, Judge: The Commissioner determined an estate tax deficiency of $ 1,250,490 against the decedent Carol M. McNamee's estate. Primarily at issue is the constitutionality of a retroactively amended provision of section 2057, in respect of a claimed estate tax deduction based upon the estate's purchases of stock in an employer corporation and resale of the stock to that employer's Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), where the decedent did not own that stock immediately before death. 1

The decedent, Carol M. McNamee, died November 19, 1986, a resident of California. Anthony C. Morici (Morici), the brother of the decedent and executor of her will, was at all relevant times also co-trustee of the decedent's revocable trust. *330 The decedent's daughter Eileen McNamee (Eileen) is the other co-trustee. Both co-trustees resided in California at the time the petition was filed. 2

Shortly prior to the decedent's death, Congress on October 22, 1986, enacted the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA), Pub. L. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085. Section 1172 of that Act was codified in the Internal Revenue Code as section 2057. Pertinent portions of the originally enacted version of section 2057 of the Code are set forth in the margin. 3Section 2057 permitted estates to deduct for Federal estate tax purposes*331 an amount equal to 50 percent of the gross proceeds received from the sale of employer securities to an ESOP. Under the original version of section 2057 in effect at the date of the decedent's death, the 50-percent deduction was applicable to all of the proceeds of such sales as long as the sales were effected "at any time before the date on which the return of tax imposed by section 2001 [i.e., the Federal estate tax] is required to be filed (including any extensions)." Sec. 2057(c)(1). The original version of the statute did not by its terms preclude an estate from qualifying for the deduction even though the decedent did not own the stock at the time of death, as long as the stock was purchased and sold prior to the filing date for the estate tax return.

*332 The decedent died testate on November 19, 1986. Her will was admitted to probate in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County. At the time of her death, all of her assets that were not held in her revocable trust or passed directly to the decedent's daughters under beneficiary designations (e.g., insurance policies), were administered in the probate proceedings. At the time of her death, the decedent did not own any securities in ALZA Corporation (ALZA), the stock of which was publicly traded.

After the decedent's death, petitioners, acting in their fiduciary capacities, decided that it would be in the best interest of the estate to take advantage of the ESOP deduction under section 2057 as enacted in 1986 and in effect at that time. On or around February 12, 1987, petitioners opened an account at Dean, Witter, Reynolds, Inc. (Dean Witter), in Palo Alto, California, for the sole purpose of purchasing Class A Common Stock in ALZA, which was listed on the American Stock Exchange. During the next 14 days, petitioners deposited funds (obtained from the revocable trust) in the Dean Witter account, and made purchases of Class A Common Stock of ALZA for immediate resale*333 to the ALZA ESOP. Petitioners, on behalf of the estate, in fact resold the stock to the ALZA ESOP at a discount on the same respective days at private sale. Such purchases and sales for each day are summarized as follows:

ActualNumber of Total PurchaseNet Proceeds
Trade Date

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bertha Paglin Ferman, Etc. v. United States
993 F.2d 485 (Fifth Circuit, 1993)
Ferman v. United States
790 F. Supp. 656 (E.D. Louisiana, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1994 T.C. Memo. 322, 68 T.C.M. 86, 1994 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-mcnamee-v-commissioner-tax-1994.