- 21 -
decedent’s date of death.11 Accordingly, we follow the valuation
instructions enunciated by the Court of Appeals in order to
determine the proper amount of the estate’s section 2053(a)(3)
deduction.
Valuation of Exxon’s Claim as of Decedent’s Date of Death
As mentioned earlier, the estate’s only argument is that the
law of the case doctrine entitles it to deduct the entire amount
that Exxon was seeking from decedent. The estate failed to
present other evidence supporting the value it advocates.12
Respondent did supply this Court with relevant evidence of
predeath facts and occurrences supporting the value of the Exxon
claim he advocates. Respondent relied on the report and
testimony of his expert witness, Mark K. Glasser (Mr. Glasser),
to support his determination that the value of Exxon’s claim as
11Indeed, we presume that if the Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit believed that the amount Exxon was seeking from
decedent at the date of death was the measure of the value of the
claim for purposes of the estate’s sec. 2053(a)(3) deduction,
then the Court of Appeals would have decided the case in the
estate’s favor instead of remanding it to us with specific
instructions for valuing the claim.
12After remand by the Court of Appeals, the only document
submitted into evidence by the estate was a copy of the
transcript of a Rule 155 hearing conducted after our original
opinion. At trial on remand, the estate did not present any
witnesses or submit any expert reports. The only evidence
submitted by the estate at trial was in the form of an oral
stipulation between the parties that David J. Beck was the
attorney who had been retained to represent Exxon to file the
complaint that was filed in the Jarvis Christian litigation, and
Mr. Beck was retained to pursue Exxon’s claim against the royalty
owners, which he in fact did.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011