John G. ORDWAY and Margaret M. Ordway, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 89-5753.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Aug. 10, 1990.
908 F.2d 890
Cynthia S. Rosenblatt, Burton G. Ross, and Craig D. Norman, Ross, Rosenblatt & Wilson, Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before FAY and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges, and GIBSON *, Senior Circuit Judge.
JOHNSON, Circuit Judge:
The United States (“the government“) appeals from the district court‘s grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs/appellees John G. Ordway, Jr. and Margaret M. Ordway (“taxpayers“) and its order directing a refund of federal gift taxes paid by the taxpayers for the calendar quarters ending September 30, 1979 and March 31, 1980.
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On January 16, 1917, Lucius P. Ordway established an irrevocable inter vivos trust, administered under Minnesota law. He funded the trust with some 38,200 shares of Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (“3M“) stock and other assets. The trust provided that the trust income was to be paid to Lucius’ wife and five children for their lives. On the death of the last surviving life beneficiary, the trust corpus was to be distributed to Lucius’ grandchildren per capita. If any of the grandchildren died prior to termination of the trust, their share of the corpus would be distributed to their surviving issue per stirpes.
John G. Ordway, Jr., born on November 29, 1922, is one of Lucius Ordway‘s grandsons. At birth, he acquired a contingent remainder interest in the trust. John Ordway became aware of this interest in 1941,
On or about November 15, 1979, John Ordway filed a third quarter gift tax return with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS“). He disclosed the 1979 disclaimer, but stated that the disclaimer was not a transfer subject to gift tax.2 On March 19, 1982, following an audit of that return, John Ordway filed an amended 1979 third quarter gift tax return, and his wife Margaret Ordway filed an original third quarter gift tax return. Both of the returns treated the 1979 disclaimer as a taxable transfer under the gift tax provisions. They treated the gift as having been made one-half by each of them under Internal Revenue Code (“the Code“) section 2513. The taxpayers each paid the taxes assessed against these returns. The IRS later assessed interest on the deficiencies, which the taxpayers also paid.
On March 10, 1980, John Ordway made a gift of 3M shares which was unrelated to the 1979 disclaimer. The taxpayers filed timely gift tax returns for the first quarter of 1980, treating the 1980 gift as having been made one-half by each of them. They paid the gift tax as reported. As a result of a subsequent audit, the IRS Commissioner asserted a deficiency in the 1980 first quarter tax for two reasons. First, because the disclaimer was deemed taxable in the third quarter of 1979, the taxpayers’ respective cumulative gift tax brackets for the first quarter of 1980 were increased. Second, the Commissioner disallowed a $240,068 blockage discount which the taxpayers had claimed on their 1980 returns.
The taxpayers paid the asserted deficiencies, then filed timely claims for refunds of those taxes and interest. The government disallowed the refund claims in full, finding that the disclaimer was a transfer subject to gift tax. On March 16, 1987, the taxpayers sued the government for recovery of the taxes and interest pursuant to
In March 1988, both parties submitted motions for summary judgment on the question of whether the 1979 disclaimer was taxable. The government contended that the Supreme Court‘s decision in Jewett v. Commissioner, 455 U.S. 305, 102 S.Ct. 1082, 71 L.Ed.2d 170 (1982), authorized the IRS to collect a gift tax on the disclaimed interest. The taxpayers disagreed. On March 13, 1989, the district court found that Jewett did not apply and that the taxpayers were entitled to refund of the gift taxes, and the court granted the taxpayers’ motion for summary judgment. On May 16, 1989, the court ordered the government to refund $2,736,776.90 plus interest to John Ordway and $2,633,559.40
On appeal, we must determine whether the district court erred in holding that John Ordway‘s partial disclaimer in 1979 of a vested remainder interest in an inter vivos trust created in 1917 was subject to the federal gift tax.3
II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
The grant of a motion for summary judgment is subject to de novo review by this Court. Shipes v. Hanover Ins. Co., 884 F.2d 1357, 1359 (11th Cir.1989).
B. Whether Jewett Applies to an Interest Created Before 1932
Section 2501(a)(1) of the Code imposes tax on the transfer of property by gift. That tax applies whether the gift is direct or indirect. Treasury regulation
In the present case, the district court found that Jewett did not apply to John Ordway‘s transfer by disclaimer of his vested remainder interest because Jewett was an interpretation of the federal gift tax. The court found that the gift tax did not apply to Lucius Ordway‘s trust because Lucius created the trust in 1917, prior to the existence of a federal gift tax, and the gift tax specifically precludes retroactive application.4 While these facts are true, they are not dispositive of this case.
The Revenue Act of 1924 was Congress’ first attempt to pass a federal gift tax. In two different decisions, the Supreme Court held that this statute was unconstitutional because it imposed a gift tax on transfers made before the date of the Act. See Untermyer v. Anderson, 276 U.S. 440, 446, 48 S.Ct. 353, 354, 72 L.Ed. 645 (1928); Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U.S. 142, 147, 48 S.Ct. 105, 106-07, 72 L.Ed. 206 (1927). Congress passed the first valid gift tax in 1932, and that Act specifically stated that “[t]he tax shall not apply to a transfer
Two different Treasury regulations treat disclaimers as separate taxable transfers. Volume
In the case of taxable transfers creating an interest in the person disclaiming made before January 1, 1977, where the law governing the administration of the decedent‘s estate gives a beneficiary, heir, or next-of-kin a right completely and unqualifiedly to refuse to accept ownership of property transferred from a decedent.... a refusal to accept ownership does not constitute the making of a gift if the refusal is made within a reasonable time after knowledge of the existence of the transfer.7
Title
Before deciding which provision applies to John Ordway‘s disclaimer, however, we first must decide whether Lucius Ordway‘s original transfer was the kind of transfer which would bring the disclaimer under these provisions. Both provisions assume that disclaimers are created by taxable transfers. As discussed above, Lucius Ordway‘s original transfer, which created the interest that John Ordway disclaimed in 1979, was not taxable in the sense that it was made before the gift tax existed. In discussing when a disclaimer must be delivered to the transferor under section 25-2518, however, the Treasury regulations explain that, “With respect to inter vivos transfers, a taxable transfer occurs when there is a completed gift for Federal gift tax purposes regardless of whether a gift tax is imposed on the completed gift.”
Having concluded that the 1917 gift was a taxable transfer, it is a simple matter to determine which provision applies. Because Ordway made the original transfer before January 1, 1977,
C. Whether the Taxpayer Filed his Disclaimer Within a Reasonable Time
It is undisputed that John Ordway‘s 1979 disclaimer was valid under Minnesota law.10 The government argues, however, that the disclaimer was not made “within a reasonable time after knowledge of the existence of the transfer,” because John Ordway learned of his contingent remainder interest in 1941, but did not disclaim it until 1979. Under the reasoning in Jewett v. Commissioner, this argument is correct. The Jewett Court held that for the purposes of section 25.2511-1(c), the transfer of property occurs at the time of the decedent‘s death, not at the time of the vesting of the interest in the beneficiary. Jewett, 455 U.S. at 318-19, 102 S.Ct. at 1090-91. Under Jewett, therefore, the transfer in the taxpayers’ case occurred in 1917.11 John Ordway received knowledge of the transfer in 1941, and reached the age of majority in 1943. Yet he did not disclaim his interest until thirty-eight years after he received knowledge of the transfer and thirty-six years after he reached the age of majority. This is some twelve to fourteen years over the twenty-four year period which the Supreme Court found unacceptable in Jewett.
The Supreme Court did not decide Jewett until three and a half years after John Ordway filed his disclaimer and over three years after he first reported the disclaimed amount to the IRS. Before the Jewett decision, the definition of “reasonable
On appeal neither party discusses whether it is appropriate to apply the Jewett decision retroactively to John Ordway‘s disclaimer. Although there has been no clear holding on the issue, at least two justices on the Supreme Court and one judge on this Court consider non-retroactivity to be an affirmative defense, which is waived if it is not raised. See Zant v. Moore, 489 U.S. 836, 109 S.Ct. 1518, 1519, 103 L.Ed.2d 922 (1989) (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (“petitioner did not raise nonretroactivity as a defense to respondent‘s claim ..., and that defense therefore should be deemed waived“); Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 2963, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989) (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“Nor am I at all sure that courts should decide the retroactivity issue if it was not raised below.“); Moore v. Zant, 885 F.2d 1497, 1524 (11th Cir.1989) (Johnson, J., dissenting) (“It appears that non-retroactivity is an affirmative defense. See United States v. Francischine, 512 F.2d 827, 830 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 931, 96 S.Ct. 284, 46 L.Ed.2d 261 (1975).“). But see Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 1069, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989) (Supreme Court may address nonretroactivity issue sua sponte); Moore v. Zant, 885 F.2d at 1519 n. 5 (Kravitch, J., dissenting) (permitting state to waive Teague v. Lane nonretroactivity principles would result in unfairness and disparate treatment); White v. Finkbeiner, 753 F.2d 540, 543 (7th Cir.1985) (while nonretroactivity may be an affirmative defense subject to waiver, appellate court will consider nonretroactivity when Supreme Court sua sponte orders it to do so); Weaver v. Bowers, 657 F.2d 1356, 1362 (3rd Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 942, 102 S.Ct. 1435, 71 L.Ed.2d 653 (1982) (although nonretroactivity was not timely raised, the court will consider the issue because unusual circumstances require it). Following this reasoning, we find that the taxpayers’ failure to raise the non-retroactivity defense constitutes a waiver of that defense. Thus Jewett applies, with the result that John Ordway did not file his disclaimer within a reasonable time after obtaining knowledge of the transfer creating his interest, causing the disclaimed interest to be subject to the gift tax.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we REVERSE the district court‘s grant of summary judgment in favor of the taxpayers. We REMAND, however, for further proceedings on the issue of the Commissioner‘s disallowance of the blockage discount.
FLOYD R. GIBSON
SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGE
FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. I would apply the law as it stood at the time when the taxpayer executed his disclaimer in 1979. This court is not strictly bound to apply Jewett in this case because Ordway failed to argue its nonretroactivity. As the majority opinion even admits, courts have excused a party‘s failure to invoke the correct law where justice so requires.
Here, the interests of justice and fundamental fairness compel this court to judge this case according to the rules that applied when Ordway filed his disclaimer. Particu-
The sort of unfairness that is visited upon Ordway was well described by Justice Blackmun in Jewett, where Justice Blackmun dissented from the unfair result imposed on the petitioner in that case. Justice Blackmun stated that expecting Jewett, the contingent remainderman, to disclaim his interest within a reasonable time of the testatrix’ death meant that Jewett had to disclaim the interest before he knew its full extent, before he knew whether the interest would ever vest at all, and before he actually obtained any enjoyment out of the interest. Justice Blackmun stated:
The Court‘s and the Commissioner‘s position [in Jewett] also seems to me to embrace a distinct element of unfairness. The Commissioner stresses repeatedly the number of years that elapsed between the death of the testatrix and the execution of the disclaimers. This same element has been stressed in others of these cases. But to require the disclaimer long before the interest could ripen into enjoyment means that the decision must be made at a time when the disclaimant does not know what he is disclaiming or whether he ever would receive and enjoy any interest.
Jewett, 455 U.S. 305, 328, 102 S.Ct. at 328 (1982) (Blackmun, J., dissenting).
Courts have considerable discretion to excuse, in the interest of justice, a party‘s failure to raise particular issues. I believe the court should exercise that discretion here in order to avoid this unfairness. I would hold that under Keinath v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 480 F.2d 57 (8th Cir.1973), Ordway‘s disclaimer is not subject to the gift tax because it was filed within a reasonable time after the termination of the life estate in June 1979.