- 7 -
the documents to determine if the FLP had any such gains.
Respondent’s expert’s testimony was contradictory, unsupported by
the data, and inapplicable to the facts.
We are “not bound by the opinion of any expert witness when
that opinion is contrary to our own judgment.” Estate of Gilford
v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 38, 56 (1987). Although neither expert
was extraordinary, petitioners’ expert provided a more convincing
and thorough analysis than respondent’s expert. We conclude that
an aggregate marketability and minority discount of 40 percent is
warranted and is applicable to the aforementioned interests.
Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to
file a required return on the date prescribed. This addition to
tax is imposed on the amount of tax required to be shown on the
return. Although decedent’s gift tax return was filed after the
prescribed due date, the property valuation on the return was
correct and, after application of decedent’s unified credit, no
gift tax was due. Accordingly, the estate is not liable for the
section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax.
Contentions we have not addressed are moot, irrelevant, or
meritless.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decisions will be entered
for petitioners.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: May 25, 2011