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.

The IRS Causing Economic Hardship

 

It is a famous case. It is also an example of different Collection rules not playing well together.

We find Kathleen Vinatieri and the IRS in Tax Court.

Life had been unkind to Kathleen:

I don’t know what you want to know cause I do not understand all the legal stuff you sent me. I can’t afford a lawyer. And the closest legal aid is in Knoxville 30 miles away. My poor car will not go that far.”

The IRS was chasing her 2002 federal taxes.

She requested a Collection hearing.

When the Settlement Officer (SO) asked Kathleen whether she wanted a payment plan, she replied that she could not pay. She had $14 in the bank; a 1996 Toyota with 243,000 miles and worth $300; she had pulmonary fibrosis; was dying; and was taking care of kids.

COMMENT:  This is a sad case to read and extremely unflattering to the IRS. It should have drawn an immediate currently not collectible (CNC) status.

The SO agreed on CNC status, but there was a problem: The Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) required one to have filed all tax returns before obtaining CNC status. Kathleen had not filed 2005. She had tried, but the payroll company that (was supposed to) issue her a W-2 had gone out of business. She had previously contacted the IRS for a transcript, but the IRS had no information on that W-2 either.

You can see the issue. Unless Kathleen had retained that last 2005 pay stub, there was no way for her to file that tax return. The IRS could not help, as they did not have a copy of the W-2 either. Kathleen was stranded.

BTW, the IRM is internal to the IRS.

Here is the Regulation – and external to the IRS.

§ 301.6343-1 Requirement to release levy and notice of release.

(a) In general. A district director, service center director, or compliance center director (director) must promptly release a levy upon all, or part of, property or rights to property levied upon and must promptly notify the person upon whom the levy was made of such a release, if the director determines that any of the conditions in paragraph (b) of this section (conditions requiring release) exist. The director must make a determination whether any of the conditions requiring release exist if a taxpayer submits a request for release of levy in accordance with paragraph (c) or (d) of this section; however, the director may make this determination based upon information received from a source other than the taxpayer. The director may require any supporting documentation as is reasonably necessary to determine whether a condition requiring release exists.

(b) Conditions requiring release. The director must release the levy upon all or a part of the property or rights to property levied upon if he or she determines that one of the following conditions exists—

(1) Liability satisfied or unenforceable

(2) Release will facilitate collection.

(3) Installment agreement.

(4) Economic hardship—(i) General rule. The levy is creating an economic hardship due to the financial condition of an individual taxpayer. This condition applies if satisfaction of the levy in whole or in part will cause an individual taxpayer to be unable to pay his or her reasonable basic living expenses. The determination of a reasonable amount for basic living expenses will be made by the director and will vary according to the unique circumstances of the individual taxpayer. Unique circumstances, however, do not include the maintenance of an affluent or luxurious standard of living.

The Regulation requires the IRS to release a levy in the event of economic hardship. There was no question that Kathleen was in economic hardship. It seems absurd to issue a levy under the IRM to only have it stayed by a Regulation – that is, if Kathleen had the staying power to continue her fight against IRS Collections.

Which one overrides: the IRM or the Regulation?

The Tax Court decided:

A determination in a hardship case to proceed with a levy that must immediately be released is unreasonable and undermines public confidence that tax laws are being administered fairly.”

Well, fairly and sanely, I would add.

In a section 6330 pre-levy hearing, if the taxpayer has provided information that establishes the proposed levy will create economic hardship, the settlement officer cannot go forward with the levy and must consider an alternative.”

The Regulations to the Code take precedence over an internal IRS publication. The IRS cannot itself cause economic hardship when pursuing a levy. It took time and treasure, but the Court eventually got to the correct result.

I note that the reason for nonfiling was likely important. In this case the payroll company had gone out of business, and even the IRS did not have a copy of the W-2. Consequently, neither the Settlement Officer nor the Tax Court questioned whether Kathleen was acting in good faith. Substitute a taxpayer who simply refused to file – an extreme example would be a protestor – and I doubt the result would be the same.

Our case this time was Vinatieri v Commissioner, 133 T.C. 392 (2009).