- 18 -
lis pendens on the underlying leases. To support his position,
each party proffered the testimony of expert witnesses.
We will not, however, decide the value of the overrides for
gift tax purposes. In this case, any gift tax payable on
petitioner’s overriding royalty assignments would be fully
absorbed by his unified credit, as petitioner made no taxable
gifts prior to the ones he concedes here.8 Accordingly, whether
the value of petitioner’s gifts is $50,412, as respondent
contends, or zero, as petitioner contends, the result is the
same: the deficiency as redetermined for the quarters in issue
is zero.
Although the correct value of the overrides continues to
divide the parties and may be the subject of future litigation,
this issue has absolutely no impact on the years before us. Our
decision of no deficiency will be the same in any event. Indeed,
as the Court has previously noted: “A decision of no deficiency
* * * provides a complete victory for petitioner; a continuation
of the proceedings ‘cannot affect the result as to the thing in
issue’ * * * and can add nothing other than an advisory opinion”.
8The Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94–455, sec.
2001(b)(3), 90 Stat. 1849, created the unified credit which
applies directly against estate and gift taxes. See secs.
2010(a), 2505(a).
The credit amount in 1980 was $42,500, offsetting $161,563
of taxable transfers. See secs. 2001(c), 2502(a), 2505(b).
Under a phase–in schedule, the credit increased to $47,000 in
1981. See sec. 2505(a) and (b).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011