Estate of Ronald G. Keeton, Deceased, Kimberly Keeton Spence, Personal Representative - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
          section 2057(b)--the same section upon which the parties have               
          focused their dispute from the beginning of this controversy.               
          See Smalley v. Commissioner, supra at 457.  At its core, the                
          notice of deficiency denied the estate the deduction because it             
          failed the 50-percent test under section 2057(b)(1)(C).  The                
          parties have been arguing about whether the estate’s corporations           
          pass the 50-percent test from the outset.  Respondent’s argument            
          does not raise any new issue that should have surprised the                 
          estate in any way.  We conclude that respondent’s argument                  
          applying section 2057(b)(1)(C) does not prejudice or surprise the           
          estate.                                                                     
          VI. Conclusion                                                              
               The estate has conceded respondent’s argument that the                 
          estate cannot meet the requirements of section 2057(b)(1)(C) even           
          if the adjusted values of the two corporations are aggregated               
          and therefore does not qualify for the qualified family-owned               
          business deduction under section 2057.  The actual stipulation              
          that the parties entered into did not establish that the estate             
          satisfied section 2057(b)(1)(C).  Therefore, the stipulation                
          contradicts neither respondent’s argument nor the estate’s                  
          concession of his argument.  Finally, the fact that respondent              
          raised his argument for the first time on brief does not prevent            
          us from considering it because it simply applies the correct law            







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

Last modified: May 25, 2011