- 16 -
a value that would cause a part of the transfer to be taxable,
that part of the transfer would revert to the donor. The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit described this provision
as a condition subsequent, and held that it was void as against
public policy. See Commissioner v. Procter, supra at 827.
We need not decide whether Procter and Ward control here
because we disregard the stated $300,000 gift value for other
reasons. First, petitioners reported on their gift tax returns
that they each gave two 22.3-percent interests in the
partnership. Contrary to the transfer document, they did not
report that they had given partnership interests worth $300,000.
We believe this shows their disregard for the transfer document,
and that they intended to give 22.3-percent interests in the
partnership.5
Second, even though petitioners contend that respondent is
limited to the $300,000 amount, i.e., that the gifts were for
$300,000 and thus cannot be worth more than $300,000, petitioners
contend that the gifts are each worth less than $300,000. In
fact, petitioners offered expert testimony to show that each gift
was worth only $263,165. We find petitioners’ contentions to be
at best inconsistent. We treat petitioners’ contention and offer
5 Gifts of 22.3-percent partnership interests are at odds
with the appraisal which valued a 22.22222-percent interest at
the $300,000 amount specified in the transfer document.
Petitioners do not explain this discrepancy between the transfer
document and their returns.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011