Estate Can Take Theft Loss Deduction Related to Madoff Ponzi Scheme

By James A. Beavers, J.D., LL.M., CPA, CGMA

The Tax Court held that an estate could take a Sec. 2054 theft loss deduction where a Ponzi scheme rendered an interest in an LLC the estate owned worthless.


James Heller, a resident of New York City, died on Jan. 31, 2008. At that time, he owned a 99% interest in the James Heller Family LLC (JHF). His son and daughter each held a 0.5% interest in JHF, the only asset of which was an account (JHF Madoff account) with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (Madoff Securities). Between March 4 and Nov. 28, 2008, the manager of JHF withdrew $11,500,000 from the JHF Madoff account and distributed it according to JHF's ownership interests. The estate received $11,385,000 of the amount distributed, which it used to pay its taxes and administrative expenses.

In December 2008, Bernie Madoff was arrested and charged with securities fraud for perpetrating a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme through Madoff Securities. In March 2009, Madoff admitted that Madoff Securities was a massive Ponzi scheme and pleaded guilty to various federal crimes (for which Madoff eventually was sentenced to 150 years in prison). Because of the Ponzi scheme, JHF's interest in the JHF Madoff account and the estate's interest in JHF became worthless.

The estate in April 2009 timely filed an estate tax return, on which it reported a $26,296,807 gross estate, which included Heller's 99% interest in JHF (i.e., $16,560,990). The estate also claimed a $5,175,990 theft loss deduction under Sec. 2054 relating to the Ponzi scheme, the difference between the value of the estate's interest in JHF reported on the estate tax return and the estate's share of the amounts withdrawn from the JHF Madoff account. The IRS issued the estate a notice of deficiency in which respondent determined that the estate was not entitled to the $5,175,990 Sec. 2054 theft loss deduction because the estate did not incur a theft loss during its settlement.

The estate timely filed a petition with the Tax Court challenging the IRS's determination, and subsequently the estate moved for summary judgment, arguing that as a matter of law it was entitled to the deduction.

The Tax Court's Decision

The Tax Court held that the estate was entitled to the Sec. 2054 theft loss deduction. According to the court, whether an estate is entitled to a Sec. 2054 loss deduction relating to property held by an LLC was an issue of first impression. Because neither the regulations nor the legislative history relating to Sec. 2054 or its predecessors addressed the issue, the court analyzed the statute to make its decision.

Under Sec. 2054, an estate is entitled to deductions relating to losses incurred during the settlement of the estate "arising from" theft. The IRS conceded that Madoff Securities defrauded JHF and that the LLC incurred a loss, but it contended that the estate was not entitled to a Sec. 2054 deduction because JHF, not the estate, had incurred the loss. In particular, the IRS emphasized that, under New York law, JHF, not the estate, was the theft victim.

The Tax Court, however, based on a dictionary definition of the word "arise," found that the use of the phrase "arising from" in Sec. 2054 meant that the estate was entitled to a deduction if there was a sufficient nexus between the theft and the estate's loss. Not only did the court find that the nexus was sufficient in the estate's case, but it also found the nexus was direct and indisputable. The loss suffered by the estate related directly to its JHF interest, the worthlessness of which arose from the theft.

The Tax Court also found that, consistent with the rule of statutory construction that a statute must be read in context with the overall statutory scheme, allowing the estate a Sec. 2054 deduction was supported by the overall purpose of the estate tax. According to the court, while the estate tax is imposed on the value of property transferred to beneficiaries, estate tax deductions are designed to ensure the tax is only applied to what actually passes to the decedent's heirs, which is the net estate. The theft extinguished the value of the estate's JHF interest, which reduced the value of property available to Heller's heirs. Thus, the court concluded that allowing the estate a Sec. 2054 deduction was consistent with the overall statutory scheme of the estate tax.


In cases involving the Sec. 165(c)(3) theft loss deduction for individuals, which contains similar language to Sec. 2054, the IRS has argued (based primarily on dicta from Edwards v. Bromberg, 232 F.2d 107 (5th Cir. 1956)) that a state criminal law definition of theft applies, and courts have routinely, though not always, agreed. State criminal theft laws usually require a direct connection between the perpetrator and the victim. The Court of Federal Claims, in one of the few cases where a court rejected the use of a state law definition of theft in an individual theft loss case, discusses the reasons against doing so in detail in Goeller, 109 Fed. Cl. 534 (2013).Estate of Heller, 147 T.C. No. 11 (2016)

Tax Insider Articles


Business meal deductions after the TCJA

This article discusses the history of the deduction of business meal expenses and the new rules under the TCJA and the regulations and provides a framework for documenting and substantiating the deduction.


Quirks spurred by COVID-19 tax relief

This article discusses some procedural and administrative quirks that have emerged with the new tax legislative, regulatory, and procedural guidance related to COVID-19.