Page 652 - TaxAdviser_2022
P. 652

While the CCA cites Regs. Sec.   adjusted — resulting in more of the shares   should be followed. The appraisal should
         25.2702-3(b)(2) for the requirements of a   of the company and/or its income being   be dated as of the date of the transfer or
         qualified annuity interest, the IRS failed to  paid to the taxpayer.  not more than 60 days prior to the date
         address the application of this requirement   The IRS has audited a number of   of transfer.    ■
         to the facts before it. One can assume that  GRATs over the last few years, with the
         this provision was in the GRAT instru-  result as previously stated, if the property
         ment, as the IRS states that the GRAT   transferred to the GRAT was underval-
         appeared to meet the requirements of Sec.  ued. However, the CCA shows the IRS’s   Contributors
         2702 and Regs. Sec. 2702-3.       willingness to invalidate a GRAT when
           The question for the IRS, then, is   the taxpayer uses an egregious valuation.   Justin Ransome, CPA, J.D., MBA, is
         why did it ignore its own regulations,   This CCA serves as a warning to taxpay-  a partner in the National Tax Depart-
         specifically, Regs. Sec. 25.2702-3(b)(2)?   ers about the need to get good appraisals   ment of Ernst & Young LLP in Wash-
         In Rauenhorst,23 the IRS made an argu-  for gift and estate tax purposes and to be   ington, D.C. He would like to thank his
         ment contrary to one of its published   mindful of this new argument, particularly   colleagues in the firm’s National Tax
         revenue rulings. The Tax Court held that   where views regarding the valuation of an   Department in Private Tax for their con-
         the IRS could not do so unless it first   asset may differ significantly. It is question-  tributions to this article, as well as Fran
         revoked the ruling. That should be the   able whether a court would agree with the   Schafer for her thoughtful comments
         case especially with regard to current Trea- IRS in this case, since the IRS did not ad-  on the article. The views expressed
         sury regulations.                 dress Regs. Sec. 25.2702-3(b)(2); however,   here are those of the author and
           It also is questionable whether Ferguson  as it stands, the IRS may use this reasoning   do not necessarily reflect the views of
         should apply to valuation cases. Ferguson   in similar situations going forward.  Ernst & Young LLP.  For more informa-
         is an anticipatory assignment-of-income   As a rule of thumb, the rules for a   tion about this article, contact
         case; valuation was not at issue. The CCA   qualified appraisal for income tax chari-  thetaxadviser@aicpa.org.
         had already cited other cases in which   table deductions in Sec. 170(f)(11)(E)
         post-death events could be considered
         for purposes of the willing-buyer, willing-
         seller test, and it may have been reasonable
         to take into consideration for valuation   AICPA RESOURCES
         purposes the likelihood that the company
                                              Podcast episode
         might be sold. However, that does not
         require that the valuation equal the price   “Five Questions to Get Clients to Act on Their Estate Planning”
         of the ultimate sale.                Webcast
           Regarding the application of Atkinson,
                                              Estate & Trust Primer, Dec. 2, Noon–4 p.m. ET
         nothing in the facts of the CCA indicated
         that the GRAT was not being adminis-  Publication
         tered pursuant to the terms of the GRAT   The Adviser’s Guide to Financial and Estate Planning, Vol. 1
         instrument. There was no “operational
                                              PFP Section resource (members only)
         failure” as there had been in Atkinson (i.e.,
         the failure of the trustee to make the an-  2022 Individual, Estate, and Gift Tax Cheat Sheet
         nual annuity payments). Valuation was the   CPE self-study
         issue and should have been addressed by
                                              Estate Planning Certificate Program (Exam + Course)
         the IRS via Regs. Sec. 25.2702-3(b)(2).
           If Regs. Sec. 25.2702-3(b)(2) had been   Estate & Trust Primer — Tax Staff Essentials
         followed in this case, the parties would   For more information or to make a purchase, visit aicpa.org/cpe-learning or call
         have agreed upon a valuation of the shares   the Institute at 888-777-7077.
         on the date of transfer to the GRAT and
         the annuity payments would have been



         23.  Rauenhorst, 119 T.C. 157 (2002).




         www.thetaxadviser.com                                                              December 2022  43
   647   648   649   650   651   652   653   654   655   656   657