- 33 -
nothing in the following cases on which respondent relies that
requires us, as a matter of law, to alter our view: Ward v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. 78 (1986); Estate of Andrews v.
Commissioner, 79 T.C. 938 (1982); Estate of Piper v. Commissioner,
72 T.C. 1062 (1979); Estate of Cruikshank v. Commissioner, 9 T.C.
162 (1947); Estate of Luton v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-539,
supplemented by T.C. Memo. 1996-181; Estate of Ford v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-580, affd. 53 F.3d 924 (8th Cir.
1995); Estate of Bennett v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-34.
We note initially that one of the cases on which respondent
relies, Estate of Bennett v. Commissioner, supra, involved a
valuation date that preceded the repeal of the General Utilities
doctrine and did not involve a request by the taxpayer for a
reduction in valuing the stock interest in question for the
capital gains tax that would have been due upon liquidation of the
corporation whose stock was at issue, absent tax planning to avoid
that tax which was permissible as of the valuation date in that
case. Instead, the taxpayer in the Estate of Bennett case asked
the Court to reduce the value of the stock interest in question
there by the "estimated costs of liquidation" which consisted of a
"discount for commissions", a "discount for losses on
16(...continued)
could be sold and bought on the open market with none of ADDI&C’s
built-in capital gains tax being applicable to that stock and (2)
that that knowledge would not have affected the price to which
they would have agreed on the valuation date for each of the
blocks of stock at issue.
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011