Nolan R. Wilkes, Jr., Personal Representative of the Estate of Nolan R. Wilkes, Sr., Deceased, Plaintiff-appellee, v. United States of America, Defendant-appellant, 289 F.3d 684 (11th Cir. 2002)

The government appeals from the district court's award of attorneys' fees to the Wilkes Estate. The primary issue on appeal¹  is whether the district court abused its discretion making the award, concluding that the government's position in the underlying estate tax case was lacking in substantial justification pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7430(c) (4) (B). We affirm.

Nolan Wilkes, Sr. ("decedent") died testate on October 26, 1988. A large portion of his estate consisted of 8,327 shares of stock in Suwannee Block and Building Materials Company, which comprised 87% of the total shares; the other 13% were owned by Nolan Wilkes, Jr., the son and executor. The decedent also owned some real property that was used by Suwannee. After the decedent died, the executor agreed to sell the shares to an employee stock ownership plan ("ESOP") created for Suwannee's workers. The sale took place on June 30, 1989. The total tax liability was $515,663.

The executor elected to have the provisions of IRC § 2210 apply,²  which provided that the executor was relieved of liability for a certain portion of the taxes owed by the estate if an ESOP bought the employer securities and agreed to pay that portion of the estate tax liability.³  The estate paid $168,000 in estate tax when the return was filed. The ESOP agreed to pay the remaining amount of estate tax, $347,000. Pursuant to the relevant statutes, an appropriate election was made to pay this $347,000 in annual installments over a tenyear period, beginning in July 1994. The problems giving rise to this litigation occurred because the ESOP did not pay any of the installments and guarantor Suwannee was similarly unable to pay.

After the ESOP defaulted, the IRS attempted to collect the unpaid balance of the tax from the estate. In September 1992, the estate filed an Application for Taxpayer Assistance Order ("TAO") to Relieve Hardship (Form 911), seeking an abatement of collection. In November 1992, the IRS responded to the TAO application and advised that the "enforcement of collection will be directed to the ESOP." However, the IRS later learned that the ESOP and Suwannee (the guarantor of the debt) could not pay the outstanding taxes. The IRS then pursued payment from the estate.

The estate paid the outstanding tax liability of $552,391.86 and the IRS denied the administrative refund claim filed by the estate and its subsequent protest. The estate filed suit in the district court on November 7, 1997. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The estate argued that the discharge of the executor under § 2210(a) discharged the executor in his representative capacity, i.e., discharged the estate. The government argued that § 2210 merely discharged the executor's personal liability, and that the estate itself remained liable.

In the underlying estate tax litigation, the district court granted the estate's motion for summary judgment, holding that § 2210 provided a discharge of the tax liability of the executor in his representative capacity, i.e., a discharge of the estate. Wilkes v. United States, 50 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (M.D. Fla .1999). The estate filed a motion for attorneys' fees pursuant to § 7430,⁴  arguing that the government's position lacked substantial justification. Following the recommendation of the magistrate judge, the district court awarded attorneys' fees for the trial work. The government filed this appeal.

The issue before us is whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding fees, holding that the government's position in the underlying litigation lacked substantial justification. Section 7430 authorizes the award of attorneys' fees to private parties who prevail " [i]n any administrative or court proceeding which is brought by or against the United States in connection with the determination, collection, or refund of any tax, interest, or penalty." 26 U.S.C. § 7430(a).⁵  Prevailing party status is among the several conditions for eligibility for an award of fees. With respect to the instant award of attorneys' fees to the estate, the government challenges only certain aspects of the estate's prevailing party status. The government's primary argument⁶  is that the estate cannot be a prevailing party because the government's position in the underlying litigation was substantially justified. The court below and the arguments of the parties on appeal focus on the appropriate interpretation of the language of § 2210 providing that: if the executor transfers employer securities to an ESOP, and if the executor makes the appropriate election and appropriately files the agreement of the ESOP to pay, (§ 2210(e)), and the agreement of the employer to guarantee such payment, (§ 2210(d) and (e)), then "the executor is relieved of liability for the payment of that portion of the tax ... which such ... [ESOP] is required to pay under ... [§ 2210(b).]"⁷ 

The district court held that the term "executor" in the phrase "the executor is relieved of liability" refers to the executor in his representative capacity. The district court held: "The plain meaning of § 2210(a) (3) is thus clear: said section relieves the executor of liability in his representative capacity for the estate tax liability assumed by an ESOP; relief of the executor in his representative capacity is relief of the estate." 50 F. Supp. 2d at 1285. We summarily affirmed the district court.

The correct interpretation of the statute having been thus established, the issue before us is whether the district court, adopting the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, abused its discretion in awarding fees, holding that the government's contrary interpretation was lacking in substantial justification. A position that is "substantially justified" is one that is justified to a reasonable degree that could satisfy a reasonable person or that has a reasonable basis in both law and fact. In re Rasbury, 24 F.3d 159 (11th Cir. 1994) (relying upon Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 108 S. Ct. 2541, 101 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1988)).

We review the district court's determination with respect to substantial justification for abuse of discretion. Rasbury, 24 F.3d at 165-68. This remains true even when the determination of substantial justification turned purely on a legal question. Id. at 166, 168. The abuse of discretion standard contemplates a range of choice as long as the choice does not constitute clear error. Id. at 168.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The court below properly focused on the language of the statute itself. The crucial language is: "The executor is relieved of liability for the payment of that portion of the tax ... which such ... [ESOP] is required to pay." § 2210(a). The natural and ordinary meaning of the term "executor" refers to the executor in his representative capacity, which is the equivalent of the estate itself. This is especially true in the context here, namely the context of who shall pay the estate tax — i.e., who is liable for such payment. Section 2002 expressly provides that the executor shall pay the estate tax.⁸  It is a matter of common experience and clear from related provisions of the statute and regulations that § 2002 refers to the executor in his representative capacity. Related provisions indicate that the executor is personally liable only in specified circumstances, e.g., preference of another creditor over the debt to the government for the tax or distribution to the legatees without paying the tax. See 31 U.S.C. § 3713. Indeed, the regulation accompanying § 2002 clarifies that the executor only becomes personally liable for the estate tax in certain circumstances. Treas. Reg. § 20.2002-1 (2002).

Moreover, the language and structure of § 2210 and related provisions contemplate a substitution of the ESOP for the estate, with respect to the payment of a certain portion of the tax — i.e., a substitution and not merely the addition of a primary obligor, leaving the estate with a secondary liability. When the ESOP agrees to pay a certain portion of the tax, § 2210(e), then the executor is relieved of liability for the payment of that portion of the tax. § 2210(a). That this is a substitution of liability is reinforced by § 2210(d), providing that the employer shall guarantee the agreement to pay by the ESOP. The guarantee shall be "in such manner as the Secretary may proscribe." § 2210(d). Thus, the IRS has discretion to require security for the guarantee, further indicating that there has been a substitution of liability and not merely the addition of a primary obligor, leaving the estate with a secondary liability. This substitution of the ESOP for the executor with respect to liability for the payment of the tax is indicated even more clearly by the language of § 2002, the very provision which in the first place imposes upon the executor the duty to pay the tax. In its entirety, § 2002 reads:

Except as provided in the section 2210, the tax imposed by this chapter shall be paid by the executor.

26 U.S.C. § 2002. In other words, no duty to pay the tax is imposed on the executor in the first place to the extent that the provisions of § 2210 apply.

It is also apparent from related provisions that Congress knows how to provide for a discharge of liability, leaving other entities secondarily liable. For example, § 2204(a) provides a mechanism by which the executor, after payment of the tax, can be discharged from personal liability. However, the relevant statutes expressly provide that the discharge of the executor's personal liability does not extinguish the lien provided by § 6324(a) (1) upon the property of the estate. § 6324(a) (3).⁹ 

The government argues that until this case there was a lack of case law touching on the issue of whether the statutory language relieving the "executor" of liability relieved the executor in his representative capacity or only in his personal capacity. Thus, the government argues that the issue is one of first impression, and therefore this case is not an appropriate one for concluding that the government's position lacks substantial justification. However, in view of the fact that all of the above mentioned considerations of statutory construction point clearly to the interpretation that the term "executor" refers to the executor in his representative capacity, and in view of the fact that the government has advanced on appeal¹⁰  only the mere possibility that the term "executor" could mean personal capacity without advancing any plausible reasons why it should have that meaning, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in holding that the government's position lacked substantial justification. See also Nalle v. CIR, 55 F.3d 189, 193 (5th Cir. 1995) (indicating that there is no per se rule that an award of fees under § 7430 can never be appropriate in the context of an issue of first impression, citing as an example a statute with clear and unequivocal language).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.