- 10 -
Despite having attached a copy of Willis’ appraisal to Mr.
Rabenhorst’s original gift tax return as support for the values
used therein, petitioners now maintain that Willis was not
qualified to conduct an appraisal of the 1988 stock transfer. In
advancing this argument, petitioners maintain that Willis failed
to consider Rev. Rul 59-60, 1959-1 C.B. 237, and section 25.2512-
2(f), Gift Tax Regs.3 Petitioners argue that the guidelines set
forth in both the revenue ruling and Treasury regulation are
mandatory, and Willis’ failure to conduct his appraisal in
accordance with such guidelines serves to establish that the
values derived in his appraisal are erroneous. More
specifically, petitioners argue that both Rev. Rul. 59-60, supra,
and section 25.2512-2(f), Gift Tax Regs., require that stock
prices of similarly situated publicly traded companies be
considered when valuing the stock of closely held corporations
such as RLIC. Petitioners contend that, unlike Willis’
appraisal, Chaffe’s appraisal was conducted in accordance with
the guidelines set forth in Rev. Rul. 59-60, supra, and section
25.2512-2(f), Gift Tax Regs. In particular, petitioners argue
that Chaffe considered stock prices of publicly traded life
insurance companies in his analysis.
3Petitioners also cite sec. 2031(b), but as this section
principally pertains to the Federal estate tax, we do not discuss
it. We note, however, that sec. 2031(b) generally parallels Rev.
Rul. 59-60, 1959-1 C.B. 237, and sec. 25.2512-1(f), Gift Tax
Regs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011