- 47 -
donees did not have complete control over the property. In
footnote 28 of the opinion, the majority notes that the 15-
percent discount is based upon “a 50-percent undivided interest
in the leased land, as opposed to a 25-percent undivided
interest” due to petitioner’s failure to provide evidence as to
“what additional amount of discount, if any, should be
attributable to a 25-percent undivided interest as opposed to a
50-percent undivided interest.” Thus, based upon the record at
trial, the same discount is applicable regardless of whether the
gifts of the leased land are valued on an aggregate basis or
separately. The majority opinion then, in effect, treats 50
percent of the remaining value as having been retained by
petitioner through his interest in the partnership and treats 25
percent of the remaining value, $160,876, as a gift to each son
in accordance with section 25.2511-1(h)(1).
The majority opinion, at page 23, states as follows:
We have not, however, aggregated the separate, indirect
gifts to his sons, John and William. See Estate of
Bosca v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-251 (for
purposes of the gift tax, each separate gift must be
valued separately), and cases cited therein; cf. Estate
of Bright v. United States, 658 F.2d 999 (5th Cir.
1981) (rejecting family attribution in valuing stock
for estate tax purposes).
As the author of the Estate of Bosca v. Commissioner, I
appreciate the approval of that opinion by the majority.
However, the approach of the majority in the instant case, as
discussed above, is different from the approach used in Estate of
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011