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.

Recurring Proposal For Estate Beneficiary’s Basis In An Asset

There is an ongoing proposal in estate taxation to require the use of carryover basis by an inheriting beneficiary.

I am not a fan.

There is no need to go into the grand cosmology of the proposal. My retort is simple: it will fail often enough to be an unviable substitute for the current system.

You might be surprised how difficult it can be sometimes to obtain routine tax reports. I have backed into a social security 1099 more times than I care to count.

And that 1099 is at best a few months old.

Let’s talk stocks.

Question: what should you do if you do not know your basis in a stock?

In the old days – when tax CPAs used to carve numbers into rock with a chisel – the rule of thumb was to use 50% of selling price as cost. There was some elegance to it: you and the IRS shared equally in any gain.

This issue lost much of its steam when Congress required brokers to track stock basis for their customers in 2011. Mutual funds came under the same rule the following year.

There is still some steam, though. One client comes immediately to mind.

How did it happen?

Easy: someone gifted him stock years ago.

So?  Find out when the stock was gifted and do a historical price search.

The family member who gifted the stock is deceased.

So? Does your client remember - approximately - when the gift happened?

When he was a boy.

All right, already. How much difference can it make?

The stock was Apple.

Then you have the following vapid observation:

Someone should have provided him with that information years ago.

The planet is crammed with should haves. Take a number and sit down, pal.

Do you know the default IRS position when you cannot prove your basis in a stock?

The IRS assumes zero basis. Your proceeds are 100% gain.

I can see the IRS position (it is not their responsibility to track your cost or basis), but that number is no better than the 50% many of us learned when we entered the profession.

You have something similar with real estate.

 Let’s look at the Smith case.

Sherman Darrell Smith (Smith) recently went before the Tax Court on a pro se basis.

COMMENT: We have spoken of pro se many times. It is commonly described as going to Tax Court without an attorney, but that is incorrect. It means going to Tax Court represented by someone not recognized to practice before the Tax Court. How does one become recognized? By passing an exam. Why would someone not take the exam? Perhaps Tax Court is but a fragment of their practice and the effort and cost to be expended thereon is inordinate for the benefits to be received. The practitioner can still represent you, but you would nonetheless be considered pro se.

Smith’s brother bought real property in 2002. There appears to have been a mortgage. His brother may or may not have lived there.

Apparently, this family follows an oral history tradition.

In 2011 Smith took over the mortgage.

The brother may or may not have continued to live there.

Several years later Smith’s brother conveyed an ownership interest to Smith.

The brother transferred a tenancy in common.

So?

A tenancy in common is when two or more people own a single property.

Thanks, Mr. Obvious. Again: so?

Ownership does not need to be equal.

Explain, Mr. O.

One cannot assume that the real estate was owned 50:50. It probably was but saying that there was a tenancy in common does not automatically mean the brothers owned the property equally.

Shouldn’t there be something in writing about this?

You now see the problem with an oral history tradition.

Can this get any worse?

Puhleeeze.

The property was first rented in 2017.

COMMENT: I suspect every accountant that has been through at least one tax course has heard the following:

The basis for depreciation when an asset is placed in service (meaning used for business or at least in a for-profit activity) is the lower of the property’s adjusted basis or fair market value at the time of conversion.

One could go on Zillow or similar websites and obtain an estimate of what the property is worth. One would compare that to basis and use the lower number for purposes of depreciation.

Here is the Court:

Petitioner used real estate valuation sources available in 2024 to estimate the rental property’s fair market value at the time of conversion.”

Sounds like the Court did not like Smith researching Zillow in 2024 for a number from 2017. Smith should have done this in 2017.

If only he had used someone who prepares taxes routinely: an accountant, maybe.

Let’s continue:

But even if we were to accept his estimate …, his claim to the deduction would fail because of the lack of proof on the rental property’s basis.”

The tenancy in common kneecapped the basis issue.

Zillow from 2024 kneecapped the fair market value issue.

Here is the Court:

Petitioner has failed to establish that the depreciation deduction here in dispute was calculated by taking into account the lesser of (1) the rental property’s fair market value or (2) his basis in the rental property.”

And …

That being so, he is not entitled to the depreciation deduction shown on his untimely 2018 federal tax return.”

Again, we can agree that zero is inarguably wrong.

But such is tax law.

And yes, the Court mentioned that Smith failed to timely file his 2018 tax return, which is how this mess started.

Here is the Court:

Given the many items agreed to between the parties, we suspect that if the return had been timely filed, then this case would not have materialized.”

Let’s go back to my diatribe.

How many years from purchase to Tax Court?

Fifteen years.

Let’s return to the estate tax proposal.

Allow for:

• Years if not decades
• Deaths of relevant parties
• Failure to create or maintain records, either by the parties in interest or by municipalities tasked with such matters
• Soap opera fact patterns

And there is why I object to cost carryover to a beneficiary.

Because I have to work with this. My classroom days are over.

And because – sooner or later – the IRS will bring this number back to zero. You know they will. It is chiseled in stone.

And that zero is zero improvement over the system we have now.

Our case this time was Smith v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2025-24.