- 20 -
took into account his own possible future benefit from ascribing
to the shares a value that would be a low estate tax value in the
decedent’s estate. In Estate of Lauder v. Commissioner, supra,
to determine whether we should disregard the inference that the
agreement there in question was designed to serve a testamentary
purpose, we looked to whether the price to be paid for the
decedent’s stock under the agreement reflected adequate and full
consideration in money or money’s worth as of the date the
agreement was executed.
The burden is on the executors to prove that the price to be
paid for decedent’s shares under the 1987 redemption agreement
reflected adequate and full consideration in money or money’s
worth when the agreement was executed. Rule 142(a). The
executors have failed to carry that burden. The price terms in
the 1987 redemption agreement were determined pursuant to the
1987 appraisal. The 1987 appraisal was the subject of a motion
in limine by respondent to exclude that document from evidence
because of the executors’ failure to comply with Rule 143(f),
which concerns itself with expert witness reports. Respondent’s
motion was granted, and the 1987 appraisal was not received in
evidence as an expert witness report. Simone testified that, as
of the time of decedent’s death, and based in part of his review
of the 1987 appraisal, the value of the company was “in the
range of $2 million”. Although we found Simone’s testimony to be
forthright, and it is generally accepted that an owner is
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011