Estate of W.W. Jones II, Deceased, A.C. Jones IV, Independent Executor - Page 15




                                       - 15 -                                         

          family limited partnerships with identical liquidation                      
          restrictions.  Shortly after formation, the taxpayers transferred           
          limited partnership interests to their children by gift.  On                
          their Federal gift tax return, the taxpayers claimed substantial            
          discounts in the value of the interests compared to the value of            
          the underlying assets due to lack of control and lack of                    
          marketability.  The partnership agreements provided that the                
          partnerships would continue for 50 years.                                   
               The Court held:                                                        
               Respondent’s reliance on TRLPA section 6.03 is                         
               misplaced.  TRLPA section 6.03 governs the withdrawal                  
               of a limited partner from the partnership--not the                     
               liquidation of the partnership.  TRLPA section 6.03                    
               sets forth limitations on a limited partner’s                          
               withdrawal from a partnership.  However, a limited                     
               partner may withdraw from a partnership without                        
               requiring the dissolution and liquidation of the                       
               partnership.  In this regard, we conclude that TRLPA                   
               section 6.03 is not a “limitation on the ability to                    
               liquidate the entity” within the meaning of section                    
               25.2704-2(b), Gift Tax Regs.                                           
          Id. at 473.  In sum, the Court concluded that the partnership               
          agreements in Kerr were not more restrictive than the limitations           
          that generally would apply to the partnerships under Texas law.             
          See id. at 472-474.  Respondent acknowledges that Kerr is                   
          applicable to this issue but argues that Kerr was incorrectly               
          decided.  However, we find no reason to reach a result that is              
          different than the result in Kerr.  Thus, section 2704(b) does              








Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011