- 13 -
be given their full value for estate tax purposes. In reaching
this conclusion the court observed that
Since death is the propelling force for the
imposition of the tax, it is death which determines the
interests to be includible in the gross estate.
Interests which terminate on or before death are not a
proper subject of the tax. Assets may be acquired or
disposed of before death, possibilities of the loss of
an asset may become actualities or may disappear. Upon
the same principle underlying the inclusion of
interests in a decedent's gross estate, valuation of an
interest is neither logically made nor feasibly
administered until death has occurred. The taxpayer's
theory of valuing property before death disregards the
fact that generally the estate tax is neither concerned
with changes in property interests nor values prior to
death. The tax is measured by the value of assets
transferred by reason of death, the critical value
being that which is determined as of the time of death.
[243 F.2d at 268-269; emphasis supplied.]
In a footnote to Goodman v. Granger, the court also observed that
the result reached in Estate of Harper v. Commissioner, 11 T.C.
717 (1948), is consistent with "our approach in the instant case,
although the language used by the Tax Court was perhaps something
less than fortunate." [243 F.2d at 269, fn. 7.]
When the foregoing reasoning is applied to this case, it is
apparent that the stock at issue must be valued without the
S.E.C. Rule 144 restrictions. The decedent was considered an
Affiliate for securities law purposes at the time of his death
and therefore pursuant to S.E.C. Rule 144, he was subject to
stringent volume limitations, disclosure, and other requirements
if he were to dispose of the shares. This stock was transferred
at the moment of death and passed to the decedent's estate. The
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011