- 20 - postulated reduction in value caused thereby would, as respondent correctly observes, stem from the balkanization of decedent’s interest in SSE among multiple beneficiaries. If the Redemption Agreement were to be interpreted to require redemption of only the voting shares, the Redemption Agreement would essentially grant to the Foundation only decedent’s equity interest plus a “term interest” in voting control, while simultaneously passing the “remainder interest” in voting control over SSE to other beneficiaries. Yet decedent’s interest would nonetheless pass in its entirety. Decedent would have controlled SSE at his death and would have through his estate plan passed that control first to the Foundation and then to his descendants. Such is a situation where value is divided, not destroyed. We therefore conclude that the existence of the Redemption Agreement had no effect on the value of decedent’s interest in SSE for gross estate purposes. We are equally satisfied that neither the 1992 Trust nor the corporate bylaws constitute a relevant restriction to be taken into account in valuing the gross estate. As regards the 1992 Trust, case law indicates that restrictions contained in a revocable trust becoming irrevocable at death and essentially functioning as an instrument of transfer are to be ignored in making estate tax valuations. See Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 839 F.2d 1249, 1251-1252 (7th Cir. 1988), affg. anPage: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011