Estate of Paul Mitchell, Deceased, Patrick T. Fujieki, Executor - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         

          the issues remaining for decision are: (1) The moment-of-death              
          value of 1,226 shares of John Paul Mitchell Systems common stock;           
          and (2) whether petitioner is liable for the section 6662(g)                
          penalty.1                                                                   
               All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as             
          amended and in effect at decedent's date of death, and all Rule             
          references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.            
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT                                    
               Some of the facts have been stipulated and are found                   
          accordingly.  The stipulations of facts, stipulations of settled            
          issues, and attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this               
          reference.                                                                  
          A.  Background                                                              
               Paul Mitchell (Mr. Mitchell or decedent) was a resident of             
          Hawaii when he died on April 21, 1989.  Patrick T. Fujieki is the           
          executor of the Estate of Paul Mitchell.  Mr. Fujieki resided in            
          Honolulu, Hawaii, at the time the petition in this case was filed.          
               Among the assets included in Mr. Mitchell's taxable estate             
          were 1,226 shares of John Paul Mitchell Systems common stock held           
          by the Paul Mitchell Trust (the Trust), a revocable trust                   

               1    On June 11, 1996, petitioner filed a Motion to Shift              
          the Burden of Persuasion.  By Order dated July 8, 1996, we denied           
          petitioner's motion.  On brief, petitioner again raised this                
          issue.  We reaffirm our conclusions as stated in our July 8,                
          1996, Order.  But even assuming arguendo we would have granted              
          petitioner's motion, our valuation of the stock at issue would              
          not be altered.                                                             




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011