Estate of H.A. True, Jr. - Page 40




                                       - 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