- 8 - ultimate issues) to be resolved by the Court. Such issues should be set forth in sufficient detail to enable the Court to decide the case in its entirety by addressing each of the issues listed. (2) A clear, complete, and concise exposition of each party’s position and the theory underlying that position with respect to each of the issues that are set forth pursuant to (1) above. In this regard each party shall include a statement in narrative form of what each party expects to prove. It is further ORDERED that the statement of issues set forth pursuant to (1) above shall control the admissibility of evidence at trial and evidence offered at trial will [be] deemed irrelevant unless it pertains to one or more of the issues set forth pursuant to (1) above. It is further ORDERED that neither party will be allowed to advance a position or theory underlying that position with respect to any of the issues set forth pursuant to (1) above that is different from the positions or theories set forth pursuant to (2) above. [Emphasis added.] Petitioner’s Amended Memorandum of Issues Petitioner’s memorandum filed in response to the Court’s order states the following factual basis for asserting petitioner is not liable for the gift tax assessed: The redemption transaction does not constitute a taxable gift because the transaction was the result of a theft procured by fraud. Petitioner intends to prove: (1) a lack of donative intent on the part of Petitioner; (2) actual and/or constructive fraud on the part of Nikita; and alternatively (3) the redemption was a bad business bargain; and in the further alternative, (4) the value of the stock on the date of the redemption ($3 million) was equal to fair market value. As issues of law, petitioner states: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