- 5 -
7. Petitioner shall produce the documentation
necessary to substantiate the expenses referred to in
paragraph 4(b) on or before January 15, 1996.
8. A decision document in the above-entitled case
shall be filed on or before April 15, 1996.
Upon mutual agreement of the parties, the Court extended the
last day by which the decision document had to be filed to
June 14, 1996.
Discussion
Respondent moves the Court to enter a decision based on her
decision document lodged with the Court. The lodged document
reflects the terms of the Stipulation, taking into account only
those administration expenses that Executor had substantiated as
of the date of respondent’s motion herein. Executor's principal
objection to respondent’s proposed decision is that, in computing
the estate tax deficiency owed by the estate, the proposed
decision fails to allow deductions for expenses that have not yet
been incurred. Executor asks the Court to defer entry of
decision for up to 5 years so that Decedent’s estate may benefit
from all of the deductions to which the estate allegedly is
entitled.2 Executor alleges that Decedent’s estate will incur
2 The length of the requested deferral appears to be based
on a letter that petitioner’s counsel received from a valuation
company in New York, New York. In relevant part, the author of
the letter states:
In my view the Estate of Louise Nevelson is in a unique
position to realize, within a period of three to five
years, very substantial economic rewards from its
extraordinary collection of work by this major artist.
* * * It has the ability to bring to market works by
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011