Estate of Ethel S. Nowell, Deceased, David A. Prechel, Personal Representative - Page 12




                                       - 12 -                                         

          "[T]he property to be valued for estate tax purposes is that                
          which the decedent actually transfers at his death rather than              
          the interest held by the decedent before death, or that held by             
          the legatee after death."  Propstra v. United States, 680 F.2d              
          1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1982); see also Ahmanson Found. v. United              
          States, 674 F.2d 761, 769 (9th Cir. 1981).                                  
               For purposes of determining value, the standard is an                  
          objective test using hypothetical buyers and sellers in the                 
          marketplace and is not a personalized one that envisions a                  
          particular buyer and seller.  Estate of Andrews v. Commissioner,            
          79 T.C. 938, 956 (1982); Kolom v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 235, 244            
          (1978), affd. 644 F.2d 1282 (9th Cir. 1981).  Respondent argues,            
          however, that, although the valuation standard utilizes a                   
          hypothetical buyer, who could not, under the terms of the                   
          partnership agreement, purchase a partnership interest, it does             
          not transform the nature of the interest that actually passed at            
          death from partnership interests to assignee interests.                     
          Respondent's argument rests on the notion that the partnership              
          interests that were transferred to Mr. Prechel remained                     
          partnership interests because he was "automatically" admitted as            
          a general partner by virtue of his already being a partner in               
          both partnerships.  In addition, respondent argues that, because            
          the trusts continued to hold some of the partnership interests              







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011