- 10 -
value the services at less than the employer’s cost. The
taxpayer speculated that he personally could have paid less to
move himself than his employer had paid, that the services
received were therefore worth less to him, and that he should not
have to report the services at their recognized value. The court
rejected this argument because the taxpayer "had no obligation to
accept these [moving] services, * * * [he] did accept them, this
being a part of the bargain with * * * [his employer], and * * *
the services were in fact rendered and were paid for [by his
employer] at the fair market value.” Id. at 545.
A superficial reading of Landau v. Commissioner, 7 T.C. 12
(1946), may appear to support petitioner’s position. Therein,
however, South African pounds1 received as a gift were subject to
preexisting limitations on their removal from South Africa. The
taxpayer had no control over these restrictions. The
restrictions were not the product of negotiations and bargaining
by the parties, and the Court found that the fair market value of
the South African pounds received as a gift should be discounted
to reflect the preexisting restrictions.
The present case is somewhat analogous to cases involving
the valuation of stock includable in a gross estate where the
stock, on the date of decedent's death, is subject to a
restrictive stock purchase agreement at a specified price.
Typically, in such cases, the taxpayers argue (in light of the
preexisting restrictions that are applicable to the stock) for a
South African currency is now measured in rands.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011