- 23 -
Based on this record, we find that there was an element of
bargained-for consideration present.
The fact that there was some bargained-for consideration
does not mean that there was adequate and full consideration
within the meaning of section 2036(a). In order to constitute
adequate and full consideration, the value of what the decedent
received must be measured against the total value of property
that the decedent transferred. United States v. Past, 347 F.2d
7, 12 (9th Cir. 1965); Estate of D'Ambrosio v. Commissioner, 105
T.C. 252 (1995).
Petitioner does not contest that the value of the stock
Cyril agreed to transfer pursuant to the 1951 Agreement exceeded
the value of the interest in Joseph's stock that Cyril
received.11 Rather, petitioner contends that because the value
of what Cyril received exceeded the value of the remainder
interest that Cyril transferred to his children, he received
adequate and full consideration.
We recently addressed this issue in Estate of D'Ambrosio v.
Commissioner, supra. In that case, we held that when a decedent
receives consideration for making a transfer of property to a
11In its brief, petitioner assigns a value of $83,600 to
Cyril's entire stock interest ($42,000 of which is allocated to
Cyril's remainder interest) and assigns a value of only $58,146
to the interest in Joseph's stock received by Cyril.
Petitioner's values are based on the opinion of its expert
witness, using a valuation date of Oct. 31, 1951. Respondent's
expert assigned a value of $244,000 to Cyril's stock as of that
date.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011