- 11 -
contacted Mr. Samuelson to discuss the issuance of the closing
letter and the inconsistencies between its issuance and the
conversation between petitioner’s counsel and Mr. Samuelson just
2 months earlier. We believe that a reasonable and prudent
person would have inquired about these inconsistencies.
Additionally, we are skeptical as to petitioner’s claim of
detriment in this case. Petitioner claims that it wanted to know
the precise amount of estate tax owed before formulating its plan
to dispose of the Brocato properties and it relied on the closing
letter in determining that amount. If petitioner had not
received the closing letter, petitioner contends that it would
have exercised its section 6166 election and would have waited to
sell 2360 Chestnut after the property appreciated.2
It is not disputed that petitioner had a valid section 6166
election and could have deferred payment of its estate tax. We,
however, question whether petitioner would have actually
exercised its section 6166 election. Petitioner paid its estate
tax liability on May 22, 1996, approximately 3 years before it
was required to pay under section 6166. It is speculative
whether petitioner would have continued to take advantage of the
2 Petitioner later argues that it is entitled to use the
concurrent sales method in determining the appropriate blockage
discount because it would be too risky to hold the Brocato
properties over a reasonable time period to dispose of them.
This argument suggests that petitioner desired to sell each
property as quickly as possible including 2360 Chestnut.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011