Donald John Vitale - Page 5




                                        - 5 -                                         
          the bronze from petitioner's grandfather at the latter's death in           
          1972, and the father's basis would be the fair market value of              
          the bronze at the grandfather's date of death.  See sec. 1014(a).           
          There is no suggestion that the fair market value on the date of            
          the gift was less than the fair market value on the date of the             
          father's death.  The issue turns, therefore, on the fair market             
          value of the bronze in 1972.  See United States v. Lattimore, 353           
          F.2d 379 (9th Cir. 1965).                                                   
               We are faced with a difficult task.  On one hand, we could             
          simply hold that petitioner has not established the value of the            


          (...continued)                                                              
               shall, if possible, obtain such facts from such donor * * *            
               or any other person cognizant thereof.  If the Secretary               
               finds it impossible to obtain such facts, the basis in the             
               hands of such donor * * * shall be the fair market value of            
               such property as found by the Secretary as of the date or              
               approximate date at which, according to the best information           
               that the Secretary is able to obtain, such property was                
               acquired by such donor * * *.                                          
          The notice of deficiency states that petitioner had "not                    
          established the fair market value or that * * * [his] basis in              
          this property is more than $0.00".  It is unclear whether the               
          failure was due to the uncertainty as to the appropriate                    
          valuation date or to the lack of information concerning the fair            
          market value as of that date.  Neither party has argued that                
          these provisions apply.  We note that the Court of Appeals for              
          the Sixth Circuit held:  "In the event that insufficient                    
          probative evidence upon this issue [of the taxpayer's basis] is             
          adduced, then neither gain not [sic] loss can be allowed".  James           
          E. Caldwell & Co. v. Commissioner, 234 F.2d 660, 661 (6th Cir.              
          1956), revg. and remanding per curiam 24 T.C. 597 (1955).  Here,            
          the valuation date has been established.  The uncertainty                   
          concerns the value as of the valuation date, and we believe that            
          there is sufficient evidence to allow us to make a finding as to            
          that value.                                                                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011