§2002 — Liability for payment

Section 2002 requires the executor ofthe estate to pay the estate tax.

829, 966–67. Section 6751 was added to the Code in 1998, and the same law also amended section 4973. See IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-206, §§ 3306, 6004(d)(10), 112 Stat. 685, 744, 795. Congress in 1998 did not alter section 4973’s consistent reference to the exaction it imposes as “a tax,” nor did C

The executor may be held personally liable under 31 U.S.C. sec. 3713, often referred to as the Federal Priority Statute (FPS), if the executor pays a debt of the estate before satisfying and paying a claim owed to the United States. 31 U.S.C. sec. 3713(b); sec. 20.2002-1, Estate Tax Regs. (defining a “debt” as including a beneficiary’s d

exempt from claims against the estate. - 34 - IV. Apportionment ofEstate Tax A. Applicable Law 1. The Development ofState Apportionment Statutes Although the Code imposes liability for the Federal estate tax, in the first instance, on the executor, sec. 2002, it also provides the Service with a broad array ofpowers to collect the tax, when necessary, from those who received the decedent's assets. For example, section 6324(a)(1) imposes a 10-year lien on all property included in the decedent's gr

The regulations furtherprovide that "persons holding property of" the taxpayer are not entitled to prelevy or postlevy notice; however, they may seek other avenues ofredress which are not subject to judicial review in the Tax Court.4 Sec. 301.6330-1(b)(2), Q&A-B5, Proced. & Admin. Regs. Upon replacing Mr. Crown as personal representative

ed.) In other words, a taxpayerwho maintains - 13 - [*13] multiple IRAs may not make a rollover contribution from each IRA within one year.5 Section 408 was enacted as part ofthe Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-406, sec. 2002(b), 88 Stat. at 958. Recognizing that the American workforce had become much more mobile than in previous years, Congress enacted the section 408(d)(3)(A) exemption as a way of providing employees with some measure offlexibility with regard t

It mandates that the Federal estate tax be paid by the executor under section 2002 and that payment be remitted at the time prescribed for filing under section 6151 (or a later date if extended).

408(d)(3) and 402(c) require, since the distributions consisted of money, that petitioner transfer money to the Smith Barney IRA. Both rollover provisions were enacted as part of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-406, sec. 2002(b), (g)(5), 88 Stat. 829, 959-964, 968-969.2 The purpose of allowing a tax-free rollover from a retirement plan to an IRA was to facilitate portability of pensions. Conf. Rept. 93-1280 (1974), 1974-3 C.B. 415, 502; H. Rept. 93-807 (1974), 19

ssioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-643; sec. 20.2040- 1(a)(2), Estate Tax Regs. Petitioner first argues that Ms. Friedeberg contributed consideration in the form of "money" to the value of the assets 6In 1976, subsec. (b) of sec. 2040 was added to the Code by sec. 2002(c)(1) of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, 90 Stat. 1520, 1855. The 1976 amendment created a special rule where the joint tenants were husband and wife. Hahn v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 140, 145 (1998). If the interest were a "quali

dividuals who were active participants in employer-sponsored plans were not permitted to make deductible IRA contributions because they were already benefitting as participants in tax-favored plans. See sec. 219(b)(2) as originally enacted by ERISA sec. 2002, 88 Stat. 958. - 17 - The individual retirement provisions of ERISA expressly provided that a distribution from an IRA was fully taxable to the distributee upon distribution. Specifically, section 408(d)(1), as originally enacted by ERISA, p

fund of Federal estate taxes, the executor is the proper person to bring the refund suit. Hofheinz v. United States, 511 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1975). The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit pointed out that the executor actually paid the estate tax (sec. 2002) and was the proper plaintiff-taxpayer for purposes of the refund suit. Similarly, the proper venue for a suit brought by an executor for refund of estate taxes is the judicial district where the executor resides. Kruskal v. United States,

If the executor pays the debts of the estate, or distributes any portion of the estate to a beneficiary, before satisfying the estate’s obligation to the Government for estate taxes, then the executor is personally liable, to the extent of the payment to the estate’s creditors or -6- the distribution to the beneficiary, for so much of t

fund of Federal estate taxes, the executor is the proper person to bring the refund suit. Hofheinz v. United States, 511 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1975). The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit pointed out that the executor actually paid the estate tax (sec. 2002) and was the proper plaintiff-taxpayer for purposes of the refund suit. Similarly, the proper venue for a suit brought by an executor for refund of estate taxes is the judicial district where the executor resides. Kruskal v. United States,