except as provided in § 1.668(b)-4A (relating to failure to furnish proper information) and paragraph (d) of this section (relating to disallowance of short-cut method). For purposes of this paragraph, the method used in the return shall be accepted as the method that produces the lesser tax. The beneficiary's choice of the two methods is not dependent upon the method that he uses to compute his partial tax imposed by section 668(a)(3).
Example.
Year | Taxable income | Tax |
1971 | $10,000 | $2,190 |
1972 | 12,000 | 2,830 |
1973 | 14,000 | 3,550 |
1971 | ||
Taxable income including section 666 amounts ($10,000 + $5,000 + $935) | $15,935 | |
Tax on $15,935 | $4,305 | |
Less: Tax paid by A in 1971 | 2,190 | |
Tax attributable to 1971 section 666 amounts | 2,115 | |
1972 | ||
Taxable income including section 666 amounts ($12,000 + $4,000 + $715) | $16,715 | |
Tax on $16,715 | $4,620 | |
Less: Tax paid by A in 1972 | 2,830 | |
Tax attributable to 1972 section 666 amounts | 1,790 | |
1973 | ||
Taxable income including section 666 amounts ($14,000 + $6,000 + $1,155) | $21,155 | |
Tax on $21,155 | $6,624 | |
Less: Tax paid by A in 1973 | 3,550 | |
Tax attributable to 1973 section 666 amounts | 3,074 | |
Total tax attributable to section 666 amounts: | ||
1971 | $2,115 | |
1972 | 1,790 | |
1973 | 3,074 | |
Total | 6,979 |
The difference between the amount of tax computed under (a) of this subdivision for each year and the amount computed under (b) of this subdivision for that year is the additional tax resulting from the inclusion in gross income for that year of the amount determined under subdivision (ii) of this subparagraph. For example, assume that a distribution of $12,000, is includible in the income of each of the beneficiary's 3 preceding taxable years when his income (without the inclusion of the accumulation distribution) was $20,000, $30,000, and $40,000. The inclusion of $12,000 in income would produce taxable income of $32,000, $42,000, and $52,000, and the tax attributable to such increases would be $4,000, $5,000, and $6,000, respectively.
Example. In 1971, X creates a trust which is to accumulate its income and pay the income to Y when Y reaches 30. Y is 19. Over the 11 years of the trust, the trust earns $1,200 of interest income annually and has expenses each year of $100 allocable to the production of income. The trust pays a total tax of $1,450 on the accumulated income. In 1981, when Y reaches 30, the $9,550 of accumulated undistributed net income and the $1,100 of current net income are distributed to Y. Y is treated as having received a total distribution of $11,000 (the $9,550 accumulation distribution plus the taxes paid by the trust which are deemed to have been distributed to Y). The income of the current year (1981) is taxed directly to Y. The computation is as follows: $11,000 (accumulation distribution plus taxes) divided by 10 (number of years out of which distribution was made) equals $1,100. The $1,100 added to the income of the beneficiary's preceding 3 years produces increases in tax as follows:
1980 | $350 |
1979 | 300 |
1978 | 250 |
Total | 900 |
$900 (total additional tax) divided by 3 equals $300 (average annual increase in tax). $300 (average annual increase in tax) times 10 equals $3,000, from which is deducted the amount of taxes ($1,450) paid by the trust attributable to the undistributed net income deemed distributed. The amount of tax to be paid currently under the short-cut method is therefore $1,550.
26 C.F.R. §1.668(b)-1A