Estate of Mary D. Maggos - Page 22

                                       - 22 -                                         
          While petitioner may make arguments in the alternative in a                 
          single litigation, it is not allowed to succeed twice in                    
          different suits on inconsistent factual and legal assertions.  We           
          hold that petitioner’s conduct gives rise to circumstances that             
          demand the application of the doctrine of judicial estoppel.  We            
          therefore hold that petitioner is estopped from asserting:  (1)             
          Decedent had less than a full beneficial interest in the PCAB               
          shares at the time of the redemption, and (2) the shares had a              
          value that was equal to or less than $3 million.15                          
               Petitioner next argues that the redemption transaction was             
          not a completed gift in 1987 because a breach of fiduciary duty             
          owed to the decedent occurred and/or because decedent was                   
          defrauded.  Petitioner argues that either or both events entitle            
          decedent to rescind the transaction.  We disagree.                          
               In May 1987, decedent and her son, Nikita Maggos, entered              
          into a transaction designed to minimize estate taxes and achieve            
          decedent’s testamentary goals.  Both decedent and Nikita Maggos             
          were represented by independent and qualified attorneys in the              
          transaction.  Nikita was represented by Mr. Bezman.  Decedent’s             
          attorney at the time of the redemption transaction was Robert               
          Hite.  We found Mr. Hite to be a credible, truthful, and                    

               15Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment in this               
          Court claiming “that the record shows clearly that Ms. Maggos               
          [decedent] was defrauded because she transferred her PCAB shares            
          for less than adequate consideration”.  Estate of Maggos v.                 
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-431.                                          

Page:  Previous  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011