Estate of Frederick Carl Gloeckner, Deceased, Joseph A. Simone, and Douglas Dillon, Co-Executors - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          See May v. McGowan, 194 F.2d 396 (2d Cir. 1952); Lomb v. Sugden,            
          82 F.2d 166 (2d Cir. 1936); Wilson v. Bowers, 57 F.2d 682 (2d               
          Cir. 1932).                                                                 
               Respondent argues that the 1987 redemption agreement does              
          not establish the fair market value of decedent’s shares, and               
          that the fair market value is the value determined by                       
          respondent’s expert witness, Henry Sherman (Sherman).  Respondent           
          argues that the 1987 redemption agreement does not establish the            
          fair market value of decedent’s shares because:  (1) The 1987               
          redemption agreement is not a binding contract under New York               
          law, (2) section 2703 requires that we disregard the 1987                   
          redemption agreement, and (3) the price established by the 1987             
          redemption agreement cannot be trusted because the agreement is             
          simply a substitute for a testamentary device.                              
               C.  Approach of the Court                                              
               We disagree with respondent’s arguments that the 1987                  
          redemption agreement is not binding or that section 2703 requires           
          that we disregard the agreement.  We agree with respondent’s                
          argument, however, that the 1987 redemption agreement is a                  
          substitute for a testamentary disposition designed to pass                  
          decedent’s shares for less than full and adequate consideration.            
          We do not agree with respondent that the value of decedent’s                
          shares is the value determined by respondent’s expert.  We have             
          found that the value of decedent’s shares on the alternate                  
          valuation date was $4,000,000.                                              




Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011