SCHOTT v. COMMISSIONER

2001 T.C. Memo. 110, 81 T.C.M. 1600, 2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 137
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMay 9, 2001
DocketNo. 469-00; No. 470-00
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2001 T.C. Memo. 110 (SCHOTT 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
SCHOTT v. COMMISSIONER, 2001 T.C. Memo. 110, 81 T.C.M. 1600, 2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 137 (tax 2001).

Opinion

PATRICIA A. SCHOTT, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent STEPHEN C. SCHOTT, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
SCHOTT v. COMMISSIONER
No. 469-00; No. 470-00
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 2001-110; 2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 137; 81 T.C.M. (CCH) 1600;
May 9, 2001, Filed

*137 Decisions will be entered under Rule 155.

Scott A. Bieber, for petitioners.
Catherine M. Thayer, James A. Whitten, and William E. Bogner, for respondent.
Cohen, Mary Ann

COHEN

MEMORANDUM OPINION

COHEN, JUDGE: Respondent determined Federal gift tax deficiencies for 1994 in docket No. 469-00 in the amount of $ 126,080 and in docket No. 470-00 in the amount of $ 137,953.

The issue for decision in these consolidated cases is whether a successor annuity interest of a spouse in a retained two- life annuity is a qualified interest that is subject to valuation pursuant to section 2702. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect on the date of the transfers, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

BACKGROUND

The parties submitted these cases fully stipulated pursuant to Rule 122. The stipulated facts are incorporated by this reference. At the time of the filing of the petitions in these cases, petitioners resided in Los Altos, California. Petitioners owned 90 percent of the outstanding stock of SCS Development Company (company), a closely held corporation that develops, constructs, *138 and sells single-family houses.

On May 31, 1994, Stephen C. Schott (Mr. Schott) created the Stephen C. Schott 1994 Qualified Annuity Trust, a grantor retained annuity trust (GRAT) in which Mr. Schott was both the grantor and trustee. On that same day, Patricia A. Schott (Mrs. Schott) created the Patricia A. Schott 1994 Qualified Annuity Trust, a GRAT in which Mrs. Schott was both the grantor and trustee. Each GRAT was funded by 11,400 shares of stock in the company that were valued at $ 5,394,929.50.

Each GRAT provided for fixed annual annuity payments in an amount equal to 11.54 percent of the initial fair market value of the assets that were contributed. The annuity was to be paid to the grantor commencing on May 31, 1994, and ending on the date that was 15 years after the commencement date or, if sooner, on the date of death of the grantor. If the grantor died prior to the end of the 15- year term, the annuity was to be paid to the spouse for the balance of the term, unless this right had been previously revoked by the grantor. If the grantor died prior to the end of the 15-year term, and if the spouse did not survive the grantor or if the grantor had revoked the interest of the*139 spouse, the annuity payments would cease, and the remaining GRAT property would be held in trust for the surviving spouse or for the descendants of the grantor. For the Stephen C. Schott 1994 Qualified Annuity Trust, if the grantor survived the 15-year term, the assets remaining in the GRAT would be held in trust for the grantor's spouse, if then living, or otherwise for the grantor's descendants. For the Patricia A. Schott 1994 Qualified Annuity Trust, if the grantor survived the 15-year term, the assets remaining in the GRAT would be held in trust for the grantor's descendants.

During the annuity term, distribution of trust income or principal could not be made to any person other than the grantor during the life of the grantor. In the event that the grantor died and the spouse received the annuity, distribution of income or principal could not be made to any person other than the spouse during the life of the spouse. Each GRAT was irrevocable except that the grantor retained the right to revoke the successor interest of his or her spouse in the annuity.

Each GRAT provided that the grantor intended to create a "qualified interest", as defined in section 2702(b)(1), and that the*140 provisions of the GRAT document were to be construed in accord with that intent. Each GRAT document further provided that, if the initial fair market value of the assets that were contributed was incorrectly determined, the trustee would either pay to or recover from the grantor or his or her spouse the amount necessary to account for the undervaluation or overvaluation of the assets within a reasonable period after the final Federal tax determination of the correct value. Each GRAT document also prohibited commutation of the annuity interest and additional contributions to the GRAT's, after the initial funding.

DISCUSSION

Petitioners assert that the interests in the annuities that were given to each spouse are qualified interests under section 2702 and that the retained interests are single annuities based on two lives, referred to as dual-life annuities. Petitioners contend that the retained interests in the annuities should be valued as interests for the term of 15 years or for the lives of the grantor and spouse, whichever is shorter. Respondent asserts that the interests in the annuities that were given to each spouse are not qualified interests and that the retained interests*141 are single-life annuities.

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

Related

Cook v. Commissioner
115 T.C. No. 2 (U.S. Tax Court, 2000)
Walton v. Commissioner
115 T.C. No. 41 (U.S. Tax Court, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2001 T.C. Memo. 110, 81 T.C.M. 1600, 2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schott-v-commissioner-tax-2001.