- 34 -
liquidation", and a "discount for the costs of overhead and sales
costs". Estate of Bennett v. Commissioner, supra.
Turning to the remaining cases on which respondent relies, it
is significant to us that, except for Estate of Luton v.
Commissioner, supra, none of the cases on which respondent relies
indicates that any of the expert witnesses who testified in those
cases considered corporate built-in capital gains tax as a factor
in appraising the respective stock interests at issue in those
cases. In the Estate of Luton case, one of the taxpayer's
experts, but not respondent’s expert, reduced the asset value of
each of the corporations at issue by liquidation costs that
included, inter alia, Federal and State capital gains taxes that
would have been incurred on liquidation of those corporations.
Estate of Luton v. Commissioner, supra. In contrast, in the
present case, all of the experts for both parties are of the view
that ADDI&C’s built-in capital gains tax must be taken into
account as a factor in ascertaining the fair market value of each
of the two blocks of ADDI&C stock in question.
Except for Estate of Luton v. Commissioner, supra, and Estate
of Ford v. Commissioner, supra, the other cases on which
respondent relies (like Estate of Bennett v. Commissioner, supra)
involved valuation dates that preceded the repeal of the General
Utilities doctrine. As we read all of those cases, including
Estate of Luton and Estate of Ford, the taxpayers requested the
Court for a reduction in valuing the respective stock interests in
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011