- 49 -
2512(b), the property is to be valued in the donor’s hands prior
to the transaction with no discounts or reductions permitted.
For example, in the case of the leased land, the only asset
as to which respondent has raised an issue in this case, it
appears that Judges Ruwe and Beghe take the position that the
value of the property in the donor’s hands before the transfer,
$757,064, must also be the value of the property transferred by
the donor. Presumably, they would take the position that the
value of the consideration received by the donor is 50 percent of
the value of the property transferred or $378,532, based upon the
fact that petitioner retained a 50-percent interest in the
partnership. Under this approach the aggregate value of the
gifts would be $378,532 and that amount must be included in
computing the amount of gifts made by petitioner during the
calendar year. Thus, they disagree that a discount of 15 percent
is proper to reflect the reduced value of undivided interests in
the leased land.
Their view appears to be at odds with the fact that
discounts and reductions are permitted in the case of direct
gifts. If a donor makes a direct gift to one or more donees, the
sum of the gifts may be less than the value of the property in
the donor’s hands before the transfer. For example, we have held
that the sum of all the fractional interests in real property
gifted by a donor was less than the value of the whole property
in the donor’s hands. In Mooneyham v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1991-178, the donor owned 100 percent of a certain parcel of real
Page: Previous 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011