- 24 -
partnership's restrictive buy-sell provisions were not merely a
substitute for a testamentary disposition to the natural objects of
each decedent's bounty. In doing so, we rejected the Commissioner's
argument that the partnership agreement could have been amended to
circumvent the restrictive buy-sell provisions. Petitioners
maintain that our observation in a footnote in Estate of Bischoff v.
Commissioner, supra at 42 n.10, that the provisions of the agreement
were adhered to following the deaths of several partners (including
the decedents) indicates that an agreement will be respected for
estate tax purposes so long as the parties adhere to its terms. We
disagree. In Estate of Bischoff v. Commissioner, supra at 36, the
two decedents, who were husband and wife, owned partnership
interests of only 12.5 percent and 14.286 percent, respectively, at
their deaths.18 In addition, although one of the decedents was the
sister of another of the partners, we noted that "respondent does
not contend that the Bischoff and Brunckhorst families were the
natural objects of each other's bounty. Moreover, there is no
evidence which would support such a contention." Id. at 42 n.10.
In the instant case, in contrast, the terms of the original Buy-Sell
Agreement expressly provided that decedent possessed the authority
to alter the agreement's terms at any time, and the natural objects
of decedent's bounty were the other shareholders of CamVic stock.
18Since the partnership generally retired each partner's
interest upon his withdrawal or death, the interests owned by the
decedents at their deaths were presumably their largest. See
Estate of Bischoff v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 32, 36 (1977).
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011