- 127 - device, we see that certain patterns emerge. The cases in which the test was satisfied (i.e., no testamentary device found), and the buy-sell agreement’s price was held to determine fair market value, involved buy-sell agreements that (1) were between unrelated parties or related parties who were not the natural objects of the decedent’s bounty and (2) were either implicitly or expressly found to be done on an arm’s-length basis.47 Thus, case law preceding the enactment of section 2703 shows that courts were more likely to find that a buy-sell agreement’s price determined estate tax value under section 20.2031-2(h), Estate Tax Regs., if the agreement was comparable to that which would be 47Cases involving intrafamily buy-sell agreements that were held not to determine estate tax value include: Dorn v. United States, 828 F.2d 177 (3d Cir. 1987); St. Louis County Bank v. United States, 674 F.2d 1207 (8th Cir. 1982); Estate of Reynolds v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 172 (1970); Hoffman v. Commissioner, 2 T.C. 1160 (1943); Bommer Revocable Trust v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-380; Lauder II; Slocum v. United States, 256 F. Supp 753 (S.D.N.Y. 1966). But see Estate of Rudolph v. United States, 93-1 USTC par. 60,130, 71 AFTR 2d 93-2169 (S.D. Ind. 1993). Cases involving buy-sell agreements that (1) were between unrelated parties or parties that were not the natural objects of decedent’s bounty, (2) were implicitly or explicitly found to have been transacted on an arm’s-length basis, and (3) were held to determine estate tax value include: Estate of Bischoff v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 32 (1977) (brother and sister not considered natural objects of each other’s bounty; implicitly arm’s length); Estate of Littick v, Commissioner, 31 T.C. 181 (1958)(three of five parties to agreement were brothers; explicitly arm’s length); Bensel v. Commissioner, 36 B.T.A. 246 (1937), affd. 100 F.2d 639 (3d Cir. 1938) (son was not natural object of decedent’s bounty due to hostile relationship; explicitly arm’s length); Estate of Carpenter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-653 (unrelated parties to agreement; explicitly arm’s length); Estate of Seltzer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-519 (only two of five parties to agreement were related; implicitly arm’s length).Page: Previous 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011