- 23 -
disinterested witness. Mr. Hite testified that the purpose of
the transaction was an “estate freeze”, a legitimate estate
planning technique to move an appreciating asset out of
decedent’s estate.16 He further testified that Nikita Maggos’
attorney, Victor Brezman, had planned the transaction. Mr. Hite
did not question the redemption price that decedent and her son,
Nikita Maggos, had agreed upon because it satisfied decedent’s
16Mr. Hite testified:
Q And do you know who planned this transaction?
A It was Mr. Bezman.
Q And did anyone describe the reasons for the
transaction?
A Right; he explained that the value of this
Pepsi-Cola bottling company was going up, and that they
wanted to stop the value from going up any higher in Mrs.
Maggos’ estate, so they wanted to freeze it at the present
value.
Q They wanted to freeze it at the present value?
A Right.
Q Does a transaction--in the jargon of your trade,
does the--this transaction have a name?
A Well, it’s an estate freeze, is what it is, yes.
Q And were you aware of a concept of an estate
freeze prior to this meeting?
A Yes, of course.
Q Did you have any personal reservations about the
legitimacy of an estate freeze?
A No; it’s a perfectly legitimate legal transaction.
Q Are there any parameters in which the transaction
should fall?
A Well, when you say, “Freeze it at present value,”
obviously the price the transaction is being placed at
should be the fair market value of the property, the present
fair market value of the property.
Q Uh-huh. Was this meeting that occurred in your
office a negotiating session?
A No, it wasn’t. It was--they came in, they said
that they had reached this agreement with Mrs. Maggos, and
that she was going to redeem her stock at the $3 million
figure.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011