- 4 - under any circumstances, the possibility of any form of built-in capital gains tax discount. After the parties had agreed to settlement, petitioners discovered that respondent had, in another case, Estate of Davis v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 530 (1998), taken the following reply brief position: Respondent agrees that if a sale or liquidation of [the taxpayer’s] assets was in fact contemplated on the valuation date or if, in fact, avoidance of a corporate level capital gains tax was not available, some reduction in value would be appropriate. Respondent contends that his trial memorandum comports with the position stated in the above-cited case and that respondent’s counsel did not agree that the circumstances for such a discount or reduction exist here. Respondent references the following from his trial memorandum in this case: Because a purchaser of the decedent’s stock could have avoided or indefinitely deferred payment of capital gains tax, and because no liquidation or sale of assets was planned for this particular corporation as of the date of death, a discount for potential capital gains tax is too speculative for estate tax valuation purposes. Discussion In this setting, petitioners argue that there was either a mutual mistake or an affirmative misrepresentation regarding respondent’s position on the major issue in this case. Respondent counters that there was a settlement agreement, which was not founded on a mutual mistake, and that respondent’s counsel did not misrepresent respondent’s position.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011