- 26 -
is that it was admitted into evidence in Cause No. 96-109,
contrary to petitioner’s claim. The State court’s extensive
findings of fact in Cause Nos. 96-60 and 96-109 reveal that
Ms. Williams was afforded a full and fair opportunity to present
all evidence in support of her various claims.
We shall not exercise our discretion to preclude
respondent’s claim of estoppel.
B. Conclusion
Petitioner is precluded from claiming that, prior to
decedent’s death, decedent had sold or otherwise transferred the
property to Ms. Williams.
IV. Summary Judgment
As stated, petitioner has raised no factual issue with
respect to the assignments of error, other than that, prior to
his death, decedent had sold or otherwise transferred the
property to Ms. Williams. Petitioner is precluded from making
such a showing. Petitioner has not questioned the application of
section 2033 or any other provision of the Federal estate tax.
Petitioner, therefore, is left with no basis for assigning error
to respondent’s determination of a deficiency based on the
inclusion of the value of the property in the gross estate.
Petitioner’s assignments of error in that regard are, therefore,
without merit. We shall grant the motion.
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