- 108 -
appropriate for them to deviate from those terms.45 Thus, this
factor does not apply to the True companies’ buy-sell agreements.
Petitioners cite our opinion in Estate of Bischoff v.
Commissioner, 69 T.C. 32 (1977), for the proposition that
enforcement of a buy-sell agreement against the estate of a son
who predeceased his parents was strong evidence that the
agreement was a bona fide business arrangement and not a device.
Petitioners assert that Tamma Hatten’s sale to her parents and
brothers under the buy-sell agreements should be viewed as
equally strong evidence of Dave True’s lack of testamentary
purpose.
Petitioners misconstrue the facts of Estate of Bischoff v.
Commissioner, supra, and our comment in that case. In Estate of
Bischoff v. Commissioner, supra at 33-36, the partner-parties to
the buy-sell agreement included Bruno Bischoff, who died in 1967;
Bertha, his wife, who died in 1969; Herbert, their son, who died
in 1973; and Frank Brunckhorst, Bertha’s brother, who died in
1972. Thus, Herbert did not predecease his parents. Moreover,
our comment addressed the Commissioner’s assertion that the
Bischoff partnership agreement could have been amended to
circumvent the restrictive buy-sell provisions, so that those
provisions should have been ignored for purposes of determining
45But see supra pp. 105-106 regarding escrow set up for the
Tamma Hatten sale that departed from requirements of buy-sell
agreements.
Page: Previous 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011