Estate of Rapelje v. Commissioner
73 T.C. 82, 1979 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 37 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under I.R.C. § 2036(a)(1), the value of property transferred by gift must be included in the donor's gross estate if there was an express or implied understanding that the donor would retain possession or enjoyment for a period that did not in fact end before their death. Furthermore, I.R.C. § 6651(a) penalties for late filing or payment apply unless reasonable cause is shown, and reliance on an attorney is not reasonable cause if the executor knew a return was required but failed to ascertain its due date or adequately oversee the attorney's progress.
Facts:
- On August 11, 1969, Adrian K. Rapelje (decedent) transferred his personal residence in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., to his two daughters, Priscilla R. Wright and Helen R. Mulligan, without receiving any consideration.
- The decedent continued living in the residence until November 1969 when he went to Florida, returning to the Saratoga Springs residence in May 1970.
- From May 1970 until his death on November 18, 1973, Adrian K. Rapelje lived at the residence, having suffered a stroke in July 1970 that left him paralyzed and unable to speak.
- Neither Priscilla R. Wright nor Helen R. Mulligan ever moved into the residence during their father's life, nor did they attempt to sell or rent the residence or sell their own homes.
- Adrian K. Rapelje continued to pay the real estate taxes on the property after the transfer and paid no rent, although Mrs. Wright paid some utility bills.
- Although no express agreement existed, Adrian K. Rapelje and his daughters intended that he would be allowed to live in the residence until he purchased another home.
- Priscilla R. Wright and Helen R. Mulligan, as executrices, knew that a Federal estate tax return had to be filed but did not know its due date and made no attempt to find out, instead trusting their attorney, Theodore H. Grey, to handle the filing.
- Theodore H. Grey, the attorney retained by the executrices, negligently failed to file the Federal estate tax return until approximately six months after its due date.
Procedural Posture:
- Adrian K. Rapelje died on November 18, 1973.
- The Federal estate tax return for Adrian K. Rapelje's estate was filed by the executrices, Priscilla R. Wright and Helen R. Mulligan, on March 7, 1975, approximately six months after the statutory due date.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Respondent) determined a deficiency in Federal estate tax and additions to tax under section 6651 for late filing and payment.
- Priscilla R. Wright and Helen R. Mulligan, as executrices of the Estate of Adrian K. Rapelje (Petitioners), filed a petition with the United States Tax Court challenging the Commissioner's determination.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does the value of a personal residence, transferred by gift, need to be included in the decedent's gross estate under I.R.C. § 2036(a)(1) when there was an implied understanding that the decedent would continue to possess or enjoy the property until his death? 2. Does reliance on an attorney to timely file an estate tax return constitute "reasonable cause" under I.R.C. § 6651(a) for the late filing and payment of estate taxes, when the executrices knew a return was required but did not ascertain its due date or adequately monitor the attorney's progress?
Opinions:
Majority - Dawson, Judge
Yes, the value of Adrian K. Rapelje's residence must be included in his gross estate under section 2036. This section requires property to be included if the decedent retained actual possession or enjoyment, even without an enforceable right, which can arise from an express or implied understanding among the parties at the time of transfer. The burden of disproving such an implied agreement is on the petitioner and is particularly onerous in intrafamily transfers. The court found an implied understanding based on several factors: the decedent's continued, almost exclusive occupancy of the residence until his death; his payment of real estate taxes and lack of rent; the daughters' failure to move in, sell, or rent the property, or sell their own homes; and the overall lack of substantial change in the relationship of the parties to the residence after the gift. The court rejected the petitioners' arguments that the decedent's Florida trip or Mrs. Mulligan's planned move negated an implied agreement, concluding that any intent for the decedent to vacate was implicitly conditioned on him finding a new home, which did not occur. No, reliance on an attorney to timely file the estate tax return and pay the related tax liability does not constitute "reasonable cause" under section 6651(a) in this instance. Section 6651(a) imposes additions to tax unless failure to file or pay is due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, defined as exercising ordinary business care and prudence. When a taxpayer knows a return is required and delegates filing, mere reliance on the delegate is insufficient. The taxpayer must, at a minimum, ascertain the due date and ensure the delegate acts diligently. Here, the executrices knew a return was required but failed to inquire about the due date or their general duties, and their single, meager inquiry into the attorney's progress was insufficient oversight. The court held that if an executor is aware a return is necessary, it is reasonable to presume awareness of a filing deadline, and failure to ascertain that date constitutes a lack of ordinary care.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of I.R.C. § 2036(a)(1) in family gift scenarios, emphasizing that an implied agreement for retained possession is sufficient for estate inclusion, placing a high burden on taxpayers to demonstrate otherwise. It also firmly establishes the non-delegable personal duty of executors under I.R.C. § 6651(a) to ascertain tax return due dates and exercise diligence in overseeing legal counsel, underscoring that passive reliance, even when counsel is retained, does not constitute reasonable cause. The ruling serves as a crucial reminder for fiduciaries to actively manage their tax obligations, regardless of professional assistance, and reinforces the IRS's ability to levy penalties for administrative oversights.
