Estate of Cyril I. Magnin, Deceased, Donald Isaac Magnin, Executor - Page 23

                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011