- 10 -
history--nothing more--at the instant of his death, and unlike
the usual case where death brings no change in value, the
restricted value of the shares in decedent's hands while he was
living does not serve to control the value transferred.
The parties have brought to our attention, in addition to
Ahmanson Foundation v. United States, supra, a number of cases in
this Court and others where the holding in the Land case has been
cited with approval and relied upon. A non-all-inclusive list of
such cases includes: Estate of Bright v. United States, 658 F.2d
999 (5th Cir. 1981); Estate of Chenoweth v. Commissioner, 88 T.C.
1577 (1987); Estate of Harrison v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-
8. As respondent points out on brief, Propstra v. United States,
680 F.2d 1248 (9th Cir. 1982), does not cite the Land case, but
relies heavily on Bright, so it can be said that Propstra relies
indirectly on Land.
None of the cases included in the above list involved a fact
situation sufficiently analogous to the facts of the instant case
to warrant discussion herein, and to do so, we believe, would
lengthen this Opinion without providing any equivalent aid to our
analysis. We believe the moment-of-death concept as delineated
in the Land case has been accepted widely enough by the Ninth
Circuit, other Courts of Appeal, and this Court, as to constitute
established law, and that it is applicable to the facts of this
case. We so hold.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011