Estate of Richard R. Simplot - Page 77




                                       - 77 -                                         

          petitioner has failed to prove there was reasonable cause or good           
          faith reliance for the undervaluation.  Petitioner, on the other            
          hand, maintains that it relied on professional appraisers and               
          attorneys in preparing the return.  Essentially, petitioner argues          
          that any tax understatements were in good faith and due to                  
          reasonable cause.                                                           
               The parties stipulated that "the fair market value of the              
          Class A voting shares and Class B nonvoting shares reported on the          
          estate tax return was based upon an appraisal report issued by              
          Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated."  That appraisal was prepared           
          for the purpose of guiding the estate in preparation of its tax             
          return.                                                                     
               We have found (as an ultimate fact) that petitioner acted              
          reasonably and in good faith in relying on the advice of tax                
          professionals and appraisers in valuing decedent's class A voting           
          and class B nonvoting stock for Federal estate tax purposes.  We            
          believe petitioner exercised ordinary business care and prudence in         
          attempting to determine its proper tax liability.  See Mandlebaum           
          v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-255.  Morgan Stanley was a long-           
          time adviser to J.R. Simplot Co., having prepared annual appraisals         
          for the J.R. Simplot Co.'s ESOP which were relied upon by both the          
          trustees of the ESOP and the participating employee/stockholders.           
          Thus, we hold petitioner is not liable for the penalties at issue.          







Page:  Previous  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011