- 41 -
Stinson Estate v. United States, 214 F.3d at 849; Citizens Bank &
Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 839 F.2d 1249 (7th Cir. 1988) (for
gift and estate tax purposes, value of stock transferred to
trusts was determined without regard to terms or existence of
trust); Goodman v. Commissioner, 156 F.2d at 219; Ward v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. at 100-101; LeFrak v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1993-526; sec. 25.2511-2(a), Gift Tax Regs. Accordingly,
the subject gifts are not measured by reference to the sons’
partnership interests. Because the conditions of the stipulation
are not met, we must consider what valuation discounts, if any,
are applicable.
1. The Leased Land
Lipscomb opined that a 27-percent discount was appropriate
in recognition of the fractionalized ownership of the leased
land because of the resulting reduction in marketability and
control.27 As previously discussed, however, in performing his
analysis of the 1991 present value of the lease income, Lipscomb
had previously taken lack of marketability into account in
adjusting his discount rate upward. Consequently, his 27-percent
valuation discount is redundant insofar as it reflects lack of
marketability and to that extent is excessive. Lipscomb’s
analysis is insufficiently detailed to permit us to isolate the
27 Lipscomb determined the 27-percent discount rate by
analyzing sales of what he deemed to be similar properties, which
indicated a range of adjustments from 25 percent to 100 percent.
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011