- 10 - decedent did not have control over the asset. However, respondent emphasizes that the property was in a liquidating trust and not held for investment or as an operating asset in a business setting, and, accordingly, the typical reasons for applying a control discount do not exist in this case. Respondent also emphasizes that the trust document prohibited any business operation and its sole purpose was to liquidate the trust assets. See Estate of McMullen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-500. Petitioner relies heavily on Propstra v. United States, supra, in which a husband and wife owned several parcels of realty as community property. In that case the Government argued that the taxpayer was required to show that the deceased spouse’s community property interest would likely be sold apart from the other undivided interest. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that “unity of ownership” principles did not apply to property valuations for estate tax purposes. Propstra v. United States, supra at 1251. Respondent argues that this case is factually outside the Court of Appeals’ holding in Propstra because decedent had given her interest and all other beneficiaries had given theirs to the liquidating trustee for the express purpose of selling the property. We agree. The beneficiaries, by relinquishing their interests in the property and giving the trustee control and authority to sell, including the authority to decide the sellingPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011