John T. and Linda L. Hewitt - Page 12
Legal Research Home >
US Tax Court > 1997 > John T. and Linda L. Hewitt - Page 12
- 12 -
(respondent prevailed where no qualified appraisal was obtained).
Petitioners also seek to support their position by claiming
that there was a market which provided support for their use of
the average per-share price of the Jackson Hewitt stock. This
position is without merit. Given the amounts of the gifts in
this case, the exemption from the qualified appraisal
requirements is statutorily limited to "publicly traded
securities". See sec. 155(a)(2)(A). The parties have stipulated
that the Jackson Hewitt stock did not qualify as "publicly traded
securities". See supra p. 4; see also Staff of Joint Comm. on
Taxation, General Explanation of the Revenue Provisions of the
Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, at 506 n.21 (J. Comm. Print 1985).
In this context, the fact that Bond v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 32
(1993), involved blimps which were not as easily valued as the
Jackson Hewitt stock is irrelevant.
Petitioners' reliance on cases such as Taylor v.
Commissioner, 67 T.C. 1071 (1977); Columbia Iron & Metal Co. v.
Commissioner, 61 T.C. 5 (1973); Sperapani v. Commissioner, 42
T.C. 308 (1964); Cary v. Commissioner, 41 T.C. 214 (1963), where
taxpayers prevailed on the basis of substantial compliance is
likewise without merit. The key to those cases is that, as in
Bond v. Commissioner, supra, the taxpayers had provided most of
the information required, and the single defect in furnishing
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011