Estate of Mary B. Bull - Page 9




                                        - 9 -                                         
          In effect, the amounts estimated as being due to the contractor             
          and due to the estate from the insurance company resulted in a              
          net reduction of approximately $120,000 in the gross estate.                
          Considering the $612,000 inclusion and reduction of approximately           
          $120,000, the gross estate was increased by a net amount of                 
          approximately $490,000 in connection with decedent’s interest in            
          the partially completed residence.                                          
               With respect to the $612,000 amount, respondent determined             
          that the value of the residence, as completed, should be                    
          includable in the gross estate.  Based on the $1,032,000                    
          completed value set forth in the appraisal attached to the estate           
          tax return, respondent determined that the gross estate should be           
          increased by $420,000 ($1,032,000 less the $612,000 already                 
          included)3.  Respondent argues that the $420,000 increase                   
          reflects decedent’s right to receive reimbursement from the                 
          insurance company for the completion of the residence.                      
               Respondent also determined that the gross estate should be             
          increased by $122,400,4 representing the excess of the estimated            
          amounts that may be due to the contractor over the estimated                



               3 A more complete discussion of how the $612,000 value was             
          computed appears infra pp. 13-14.                                           
               4 We have referred to this difference as an “approximate”              
          amount because it is not clear in the record how the $122,400               
          amount was calculated.  In any event, the parties only argue                
          about whether the $122,400 adjustment should be sustained and not           
          about the stated amount.                                                    





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011