- 12 -
Daniel's claim against the estate is for all practical
purposes the same as David's, and we believe that the same
considerations warrant our holding that the mutual, arm's-length
promises of decedent and Daniel constituted adequate and full
consideration in money's worth. The fact that the amount of the
settlement disposing of Daniel's claim was somewhat greater than
David's settlement has no bearing on our finding. Settlement
figures are generally arrived at after considering the
uncertainties of litigation. However, our focus in analyzing the
adequate and full consideration issue falls on the point at which
decedent and Daniel decided to make their bargain.
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
3(...continued)
Estate of Boyce v. Commissioner, supra. In the instant case,
both David and Daniel agreed to treat the settlement payments as
compensation received.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: May 25, 2011