- 18 -
Thus, it intended the word “restriction” in section
2703(a)(2) to be read as broadly as possible. See
Treas. Reg. sec. 25.2703-1 (a lease from a father to
son will to be disregarded for transfer tax valuation
purposes because it is not similar to arm’s-length
transactions among unrelated parties. [Fn. ref.
omitted.]
Respondent next argues that the term “property” in section
2703(a)(2) means the underlying assets in the partnership and
that the partnership form is the restriction that must be
disregarded. Unfortunately for respondent’s position, neither
the language of the statute nor the language of the regulation
supports respondent’s interpretation. Absent application of some
other provision, the property included in decedent’s estate is
the limited partnership interest and decedent’s interest in
Stranco.
In Kerr v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 449 (1999), the Court
dealt with a similar issue with respect to interpretation of
section 2704(b). Sections 2703 and 2704 were enacted as part of
chapter 14, I.R.C., in 1990. See Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388. However, as we
indicated in Kerr v. Commissioner, supra at 470-471, and as
respondent acknowledges in the portion of his brief quoted above,
the new statute was intended to be a targeted substitute for the
complexity, breadth, and vagueness of prior section 2036(c); and
Congress “wanted to value property interests more accurately when
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011