- 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