Estate of John L. Baird - Page 23




                                       - 23 -                                         
          account the true marketplace and the price that would be paid by            
          a willing buyer.                                                            
               The 25-percent discount used by John’s estate was based on             
          the return preparers’ analysis of a court opinion in which a                
          discount for a fractional interest was found.6  When the return             
          preparer increased the amount to 50 percent, he relied on a                 
          series of court opinions in which discounts for fractional                  
          interests were allowed.7  Although it may be appropriate to                 
          consider the amounts of discounts decided by courts in prior                
          cases, those discounts are not intended as minimum or maximum               
          limits for certain types of discounts.8  The amount of discount             


               6 John’s estate’s tax return preparer relied on Estate of              
          Bright v. United States, 658 F.2d 999 (5th Cir. 1981).                      
               7 The preparer, in support of a 50-percent discount in the             
          amended return, relied on a series of cases of which the                    
          following are representative:  Propstra v. United States, 680               
          F.2d 1248 (9th Cir. 1982); Estate of Campanari v. Commissioner, 5           
          T.C. 488 (1945); Estate of Cervin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.               
          1994-550; LeFrak v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-526; and Estate           
          of Youle v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-138.  We note that the            
          cited opinions appear to be relied upon for their general                   
          rationale and not because 50-percent discounts were allowed.                
               8 The parties in estate tax cases often play a “valuation              
          game” and advocate high and low values to provide the finder of             
          facts with limits within which the parties may be satisfied with            
          the final decision.  Because of that phenomenon, we may expect              
          that estates will report the lowest possible value, and that the            
          Commissioner will determine the highest possible value.  Those              
          very dynamics may raise suspicion about the parties’ positions on           
          estate tax valuation issues.  In this case, however, the facts              
          reflect that, initially, John’s estate was not playing the                  
          “game”.  Even after the “game” began, both John’s and Sarah’s               
          estates did not get up to speed until the trial had commenced.              





Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011