Printer Friendly

U.S. Supreme Court approves retroactive estate tax change.

When it passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Congress added Internal Revenue Code section 2057, which went into effect after October 22, 1986. The section allowed an estate tax deduction of half the proceeds of the sale of employer securities by an estate's executor to an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP). (Section 2057 was repealed in 1989.) To qualify for the deduction, the employer securities had to be sold an ESOP before the estate tax return's due date (including extensions).

In December 1987, Congress, wishing to close an inadvertent loophole, amended section 2057. The amendment applied retroactively to October 22, 1986. Under the amendment, to qualify for the estate tax deduction, securities sold to an ESOP had to be directly owned by a decedent immediately before death. The bill containing the change was introduced in Congress on February 26, 1987.

Carlton, the executor of an estate, bought 1.5 million shares of MCI Communications Corp. for $11,206,000 with estate funds on December 10, 1986, and sold them (before the due date of the estate tax return) on December 12, 1986, to the MCI ESOP for $10,575,000. Carlton claimed a deduction of about half the proceeds ($5,287,000). The transaction's purpose was to obtain the section 2057 deduction.

The IRS disallowed the deduction on grounds that the stock had not been owned by the decedent immediately before death. In Carlton's claim for refund, he argued that the retroactive change violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. A California federal district court ruled in favor of the IRS.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the due process clause was violated because (1) there was no notice of the amendment and (2) the taxpayer reasonably had relied on the law's original wording to his detriment (he sold the stock for less than he otherwise might have obtained). The Ninth Circuit said applying this change retroactively was "so harsh and oppressive as to transgress the constitutional limitation." (This language was used by the U.S. Supreme Court in decisions on retroactivity in tax provisions.

The case was granted certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Result: For the United States. To pass muster under the due process clause, a retroactive tax provision must be supported by a legitimate legislative purpose furthered by rational means. The retroactive provision meets this standard. Congress had a legitimate purpose in enacting the change--it wanted to correct a mistake in the old law. The ESOP provision was not intended to be used by any estate that had the wherewithal to purchase stock; it was intended to encourage the sale of stock held by decedents before death to ESOPs. The retroactivity of the change was rational because it would prevent revenue loss. Further, the retroactive period was relatively short: a little more than year.

* Carlton (Sup. Ct., 6/13-94).

Edited by Anne Wagenbrenner, JD, LLM, editor, AICPA client newsletters.
COPYRIGHT 1994 American Institute of CPA's
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1994, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Carlton case
Author:Wagenbrenner, Anne
Publication:Journal of Accountancy
Date:Aug 1, 1994
Previous Article:Sales and use tax bill introduced in Senate.
Next Article:IRS tests use of early phone contact to improve collections.

Related Articles
Beam resolves taxpayer claims under Davis but Quill raises new prospectivity issue.
Does Carlton end the retroactivity debate?
Limiting retroactive legislation in Canada.
Taxable rent-free lodging ruling applies retroactively.
FTC carryback eliminates interest on earlier underpayment of tax.
Retro style: redefining yesterday's green light as red.
Retroactive legislation - Press Release 99-067 announcing clarifying amendments regarding the tax treatment of resource expenditures.
Better juries than judges.
Bongard: tax court incorrectly expands Sec. 2036(a)'s application.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters