- 13 -
In his petition, petitioner not only assigns error to
respondent’s determination in the statutory notice but also seeks
a partial restoration of his unified credit. Petitioner contends
that the gifts to his sons of interests in the leased land
represent two separate gifts of partnership interests and that
the gifts of bank stock represent two separate indirect gifts
bestowed through enhancements of the previously gifted
partnership interests. Viewed thus, petitioner contends, these
gifts should be valued giving effect to a 33.5-percent minority
and marketability discount applicable to each son’s 25-percent
partnership interest. The bottom line, petitioner argues, is
that the gifts of both the leased land and the bank stock, as
reported on his 1991 gift tax return, were overvalued.
Respondent does not dispute that the partnership exists or
that it is a legitimate partnership.8 Respondent also agrees
that if the gifts of land were to be valued giving effect to
minority and marketability discounts in recognition of the 25-
percent partnership shares, then the appropriate discount would
be 33.5 percent. Respondent contends, however, that this
discount rate is inapplicable, because the gifts should not be
measured by reference to the sons’ partnership interests. In
8 Moreover, respondent has not argued and we do not consider
the applicability of chapter 14 (secs. 2701-2704), relating to
special valuation rules that apply to, among other things,
transfers of certain interests in partnerships and certain
lapsing rights and restrictions.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011