- 122 -
Respondent counters that petitioners mischaracterize the
Brodrick v. Gore holding. According to respondent, Brodrick v.
Gore did not hold that mutual buy-sell agreements are always
binding and efficacious for estate tax valuation purposes as a
matter of law. Instead, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit held that the Government’s failure to allege that the
State court proceeding was collusive or otherwise invalid was
fatal to the Government’s case. We agree with respondent’s
interpretation of Brodrick v. Gore.
Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. at 757, established the rule
that this Court will “follow a Court of Appeals decision which is
squarely in point where appeal from our decision lies to that
Court of Appeals” (the Golsen rule). We later clarified the
reach of the Golsen rule by emphasizing that it should be
construed narrowly and applied only if “a reversal would appear
inevitable, due to the clearly established position of the Court
of Appeals to which an appeal would lie”. Lardas v.
Commissioner, 99 T.C. 490, 494-495 (1992). This is because “our
obligation as a national court does not require a futile and
wasteful insistence on our view.” Id. In the cases at hand, an
appeal would lie to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Therefore, under the Golsen rule, we are bound to follow the
clearly established positions of that Court. We conclude,
however, that petitioners’ formulation of the holding in Brodrick
Page: Previous 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011