Estate of William F. Luton, Deceased, Nancy L. Jackson, Robert S. Herdman, and William F. Luton, Jr., Co-Executors - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
               Petitioner contends that if the Dune Lakes receivable is               
          treated as a receivable includable in the estate, then it must be           
          treated as a payable in determining the net asset value of Dune             
          Lakes.  However, if the receivable is treated as a capital                  
          contribution, and therefore not included in the net asset value             
          of Dune Lakes, then it must not be includable as a receivable in            
          the estate.  Petitioner contends that paragraph 2 of the SPA                
          settled part of the issue by providing that the receivable will             
          be disregarded for purposes of valuing the stock of Dune Lakes              
          (i.e., will be treated as a capital contribution) and will not              
          reduce the net asset value of the corporation.  Petitioner                  
          further contends that the remaining part of the issue was                   
          resolved in paragraph 4 of the SPA.  Petitioner claims that it              
          understood the language in paragraph 4 “as the logical and                  
          necessary mirror of the language of paragraph 2" (i.e., the loan            
          would be disregarded for purposes of valuing the decedent’s                 
          receivables).                                                               
               Respondent agrees with petitioner’s interpretation of                  
          paragraph 2 but she notes that, by its terms, paragraph 2                   
          addressed only the valuation of Dune Lakes, and the treatment of            
          the loans to the corporation for purposes of valuing the stock of           
          the corporation.  Respondent contends that paragraph 4, by its              
          terms, merely compromises the adjustment made in the notice of              
          deficiency.  Moreover, respondent contends that the adjustment in           
          the notice of deficiency related only to amounts taken as                   




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011