Estate of H.A. True, Jr. - Page 11




                                       - 100 -                                        
          business.  Thus, the buy-sell agreements enforced the active                
          ownership requirements that played a central role in Dave True’s            
          business philosophy.  In this regard, courts have found that                
          using buy-sell agreements to assure continuity of company                   
          management policies or to retain key employees are bona fide                
          business purposes that satisfy this prong of the Lauder II test.            
          See supra pp. 71-72.                                                        
               The parties generally agree that the True family buy-sell              
          agreements were entered into for bona fide business reasons.43              
          Thus, for the reasons stated above, we find that the third prong            
          (business purpose prong) of the Lauder II test is satisfied.                


               43However, respondent disagrees with petitioners’ suggestion           
          that a finding of business purpose could preclude a finding of              
          testamentary intent.  Petitioners cite dicta in St. Louis County            
          Bank v. United States, 674 F.2d 1207, 1210 (8th Cir. 1982), which           
          stated that the “fact of a valid business purpose could, in some            
          circumstances, completely negate the alleged existence of a tax-            
          avoidance testamentary device as a matter of law”.  Petitioners’            
          brief states: “In this case, the business purposes for the                  
          agreements are sufficient to establish that the agreements are              
          bona fide business arrangements.  Petitioners do not rely solely            
          on those business purposes, however, to show that the agreements            
          are bona fide business arrangements.”                                       
               We agree with respondent that established case law and                 
          regulatory authority require that the bona fide business purpose            
          and nontestamentary disposition prongs of the Lauder II test must           
          be satisfied independently.  However, we acknowledge that in some           
          instances, the presence of a business purpose (e.g., a desire to            
          vest control of a company in an employee who is not related to              
          the testator by blood or marriage) may indicate that testamentary           
          motives are absent.  This is not the situation in the cases at              
          hand.  Alternatively, if the business purpose is to keep control            
          within the family, it is fully consistent with a testamentary               
          objective.  In such a case, the presence of a business purpose              
          does not negate the testamentary purposes.                                  





Page:  Previous  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011