-34-
"subject to" a partnership. Thus, we do not consider the part of
Wiggins' reports in which he valued partnership interests because
they are based on the incorrect assumption that decedent
transferred property interests to petitioner subject to a
partnership. See LeFrak v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-526
(Court disregarded expert's report because it was premised on the
faulty assumption that the seller transferred partnership
interests, not interests in real estate).
e. Conclusion
We adopt petitioners' contention that a 44-percent discount
should be applied to value petitioner's undivided one-half
interest in the Putnam County and Clay County properties and
decedent's undivided one-half interest in the estate property.
We conclude that the value of petitioner's undivided one-
half interest in the Putnam County property in 1980 was $379,960,
and in the Clay County property in 1983 was $486,150.
C. Whether Petitioner Is Liable as a Transferee for Gift Tax
Respondent contends that petitioner is liable for the unpaid
gift tax due on decedent's gifts to him in 1980 and 1983. A
donee is personally liable for the payment of gift tax to the
extent of the value of the gift to the donee if the gift tax is
not paid when due. Secs. 6324(b), 6901(a)(1)(A)(iii).
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011