- 53 -
occurring after the valuation date are relevant evidence of value
if they are foreseeable as of the valuation date, see Estate of
Jung v. Commissioner, supra at 431, we note that the evidence
before us is limited with respect to the impact of such an
analysis.37 Finally, we observe that both experts’ valuations of
what Cyril received were made almost 50 years after the fact, and
the differences are within the general range of the amount
determined in the notice of deficiency.
The evidence presented by respondent has not persuaded us
that the value of the consideration received by Cyril was less
than the value determined in the notice of deficiency.
Accordingly, we hold that the value determined in the notice of
deficiency is the correct value of the consideration received by
Cyril.
2. Value of Remainder Interest Transferred by Cyril
If the value of the remainder interest transferred by Cyril
was equal to $43,878 or of approximately the same value, then
Cyril received “adequate and full consideration” for his
remainder interest. However, if the value of the remainder
interest was not approximately equal to $43,878, then section
2036(a) will apply and the full amount of the three trusts must
be included in Cyril’s gross estate. The notice of deficiency
37The parties agree that the Christmas holiday season
represented a large amount of JM’s sales. However, the extent to
which such a factor influences the results under the DCF analysis
using either valuation date has not been established by the
evidence in the record.
Page: Previous 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011