Personal Liability for Estate Taxes

 

Here is a greeting card for a bad day:

… the Internal Revenue Service … determined that the … Estate of Georgia M. Spenlinhauer (estate) is liable for an estate tax deficiency of $3,984,344.”

In general, when I see estate tax numbers of this size, I presume that there are hard-to-value assets. The estate will argue that the assets are illiquid, near unmarketable, and that it would be fortunate to get a thousand or two thousand dollars for them. The IRS of course will argue that the real numbers approach the GDP of many small countries. The Court will often decide somewhere between and call it a day.

Let me see what was at play.

• Whether the estate timely elected an alternative valuation date;
• Whether the estate may exclude $200,000 pursuant to a qualified conservation easement; 
• Whether the value of (yada, yada) was $5.8 million or $3.9 million.

So far it looks like another valuation pay per view Friday night fight.

• Whether the petitioner is liable as transferee for the estate tax deficiency.

That was unexpected.

What happened here?

In February 2005, Georgia Spenlinhauer passed away at the age of ninety-five. She appointed her son as executor. After paying expenses and specific bequests, the son/executor received the residue of the estate. Probate was closed in March 2009.

The executor/son requested and received an extension for the estate tax return until May 2006.

The accountant cautioned the executor/son that he did not have expertise in estate taxation and did not prepare or file estate tax returns as part of his practice.

As a practitioner myself, I get it. The executor/son had to find another practitioner – attorney or CPA – who did estate work.

The executor/son decided not to file an estate return.

COMMENT: I believe we have pinpointed the genesis of the problem.

In 2013 the executor/son filed for bankruptcy.

Through the bankruptcy proceeding, the IRS learned that he had never filed a tax return on behalf of the estate.

In 2017 he finally filed that estate tax return.

The return was audited.

In January 2018, the IRS disagreed with the numbers. It wanted money. It issued a Notice of Deficiency.

Of course.

In March, the IRS made a jeopardy assessment against the estate.

COMMENT:  Whoa! A jeopardy assessment usually indicates that the IRS suspects concealed assets or otherwise anticipates that a taxpayer will make collection difficult. Jeopardy makes the tax, penalty, and interest immediately due and payable. The IRS is authorized to begin immediate collection, without the usual taxpayer safeguards baked into the system.

A jeopardy assessment is not routine, folks.

Did I mention that the IRS was also simultaneously pursuing the assessment against the executor/son personally? Why? Because he had drained the estate to zero with the distribution to himself.

This would not turn out well. There are certain elections - such as an alternate valuation date - that must be made on a timely-filed return. Filing 11 years late is not a timely filing. There were the usual valuation disputes (I can use municipal assessment amounts as asset values! No, you cannot!). There was even a self-cancelling promissory note that got added to the estate (to the tune of $850 grand).

COMMENT: I have not seen a self-cancelling note in a moment. The attorneys worked hard on this estate.

A brutal audit adjustment involved certain litigation fees on an estate asset. The Court decided that the litigation benefited the executor/son and not the estate itself, meaning the estate could not deduct the fees. There went a quick half million dollars in deductions.

Yep, up the asset values, disallow certain deductions. The estate was going to owe - a lot.

And penalties.

The executor/son protested the penalties. To be fair, he had to. His argument?

He had relied on his accountant.

The same accountant who told him that he did not do estate work.

You gotta be kidding, said the Court. They approved the penalties in a hot minute.

There were no assets left in the estate, of course. How was the IRS to collect?

Oh no.

Oh yes.

The executor/son had exhausted the estate by distributing assets to himself. He had transferee liability to the extent of the assets distributed.

Personal liability.

This was not the routine valuation case that I first expected. This instead was closer to a Greek tragedy.

But why? The estate was large enough to obtain creative legal advice. A reasonable person must have suspected that there would be tax reporting, which work was beyond the skill set of the family’s regular accountant. Heck, the accountant was clear that he did not practice in this area. Rather than seek out another accountant (or attorney) with that skill set, the executor/son did … nothing.

Granted, the tax was the tax, whether the return had been timely filed or not. The additional weight was the penalties and interest. What were the penalties? I saw them near the beginning ….

$524,520.

Wow.

Our case this time was Estate of Spenlinhauer v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2025-134.

Taking Tax Advice From Friends

 

I received a text message one night this past week.

I was researching living trusts on the internet. It sounds like it might work for my situation.

I had two immediate reactions:

First, excellent. I am a fan of doing your own research and understanding what an expert is recommending.

Second - and maybe more important – use the expert.

The problem with DIY tax research is that you may not know what you do not know. Granted, in many cases it might not matter as much (hey, can I deduct the mileage for my gig income?), but in other cases it might matter a lot.

Let’s talk about the Horowitz case from 2019.

Peter Horowitz was an anesthesiologist. Susan Horowitz was a PhD working as a public health analyst for the U.S. Department of Health of Human Services.

In 1984 they moved to Saudi Arabia. They lived mostly on Susan’s income while banking most of Peter’s salary.

They used U.S.-based accountants, so they knew to (and filed) federal taxes on their Saudi earnings.

One thing about a bank account in Saudi Arabia: it does not pay interest. After a couple of years, the Horowitzes got tired of that and opened a Swiss bank account. They were also concerned about untangling the Saudi account when the Saudi gig played out.

Makes sense.

The Horowitzes did not tell the U.S accountants about the Swiss account. This meant that they did not report the interest income nor did they report the existence of the foreign account to the Treasury or IRS.

Why?

Their friends in Saudi Arabia told them that they did not have to pay U.S. tax on interest earned on the Swiss account.

In 2001 they moved back to the U.S. That Swiss account had grown to $1.6 million. Peter called the bank every year or two to keep an eye on the account.

COMMENT:  I would too.

Fast forward to 2008, the year that UBS got in trouble with the (non)reporting on Swiss bank accounts. UBS notified the Horowitzes that they would be closing the account. Peter traveled to Switzerland and moved the funds to another bank. Susan travelled the next year to add her name to that account.

Peter opened a “numbered” account, which meant that a number rather than a name identified the account. He also requested the new bank to not send correspondence (termed “hold mail” - something the IRS did not like).

Why?

The bank explained:

… these services allowed U.S. citizens to eliminate the paper trail associated with undeclared assets and income they held … in Switzerland.”

This is going downhill.

In 2009 Peter started reading about IRS enforcement on foreign bank accounts. He and Susan decided to consult a tax attorney.

The Swiss account was now worth nearly $2 million.

They learned that they were supposed to – all along – have been reporting that account.

 In 2010 they closed the Swiss account, repatriated the funds and applied for a voluntary Treasury disclosure program.

Good idea.

They filed amended returns for the interest income, as well as filing FBARs disclosing the existence of the foreign account.

The interest income was not inconsequential: they sent the IRS more than $100 grand in back taxes.

Got it. It was going to hurt, so they might as well rip the band-aid.

In 2012 they opted out of the voluntary disclosure program (OVDP).

COMMENT:  The default ODVP penalty was 27.5%. I suspect - but do not know for certain - that they were hoping for a better penalty result during the audit process. Considering the Swiss account had neared $2 million, the penalty alone would have been around a half-million dollars.

In 2014 the IRS sent notices. The Horowitzes, their accountants and the IRS conferred but failed to reach an agreement.

The penalties now became an issue. The base FBAR penalty is $10 grand per instance. The IRS however saw the Horowitzes behavior as willful, meaning they wanted enhanced penalties. To muddy the waters further, the law had changed. What used to be a maximum $100 grand penalty was now the greater of $100 grand or 50% of the account.

COMMENT: You may also know the FBAR by its current name: FinCEN Form 114.

The Horowitzes protested. Their behavior was not willful, and - even if it was - the old penalty (maxed at $100 grand) should apply.

The Court was short on the willfulness issue.

The court acknowledged that the couple ‘insis[ed] that neither of them had actual knowledge on the FBAR requirement.’ But, relying on United States v. Williams …., it reasoned that willfulness in the civil context ‘covered not only knowing violations… but reckless ones as well’.”

In particular, the court pointed to the fact that the tax returns signed by the Horowitzes ‘included a question of whether they had foreign bank accounts, followed by a cross-reference’ to the FBAR filing requirement. It also found significant that, by their own account, the Horowitzes had ‘discussed their tax liabilities for their foreign accounts with their friends’ but failed to ‘have the same conversation with the accountants they entrusted with their taxes for years’.”

The Horowitzes appealed.

They argued that they messed up, but that mistake was not willful. The enhanced penalties should not apply.

The IRS countered: “willfulness” in this context includes recklessness, which standard was met by:    

The Horowitzes never asking their tax preparer whether they had to report the Swiss bank accounts,

The Horowitzes asking their friends about international tax matters demonstrated their awareness of potential issues,

The Horowitzes knew to report their Saudi earnings and U.S.-based interest income from domestic banks, and

The Horowitzes signed their tax returns without reviewing them with any care.

Here is the Court:

… their only explanation for not disclosing foreign interest income related to some unspecified conversations they had with friends in Saudi Arabia in the late 1980s. Yet, if the question of whether they had to pay taxes on foreign interest income was significant enough to discuss with their friends, they were reckless in failing to discuss the same question with their accountant at any point over the next 20 years.”

Taking all of these circumstances together, the record indisputably establishes not only that the Horowitzes ‘clearly ought to have known’ that they were failing to satisfy their obligation to disclose their Swiss accounts, but also that they were in a ‘position to find out for certain very easily’.”

How much are we talking about across the years?

Including interest and penalties, it was close to $1 million.

Our case this time was Horowitz v US, No. 19-1280 (4^th Cir. 2020)