- 132 -
Second, petitioners assert that book value was the most
common formula pricing provision in agreements between related
and unrelated parties when the True family adopted the buy-sell
agreements at issue in these cases. Petitioners cite Estate of
Anderson v. Commissioner, 8 T.C. 706, 720 (1947), Estate of
Carpenter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-653, Brodrick v. Gore,
224 F.2d at 897, Estate of Hall v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 312
(1989), Estate of Bischoff v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. at 34-36, and
Luce v. United States, 4 Cl. Ct. 212, 222-223 (1983), to support
their position.
We acknowledge that these are cases in which courts have
equated book value to fair market value. These cases involved
transfers subject to buy-sell agreements between related parties,
Brodrick v. Gore, supra; Estate of Bischoff v. Commissioner,
supra, between unrelated parties, Estate of Carpenter v.
Commissioner, supra; Estate of Anderson v. Commissioner; supra,
and between related and unrelated parties, Estate of Hall v.
Commissioner, supra, and transfers not subject to buy-sell
agreements at all, Luce v. United States, supra. However, this
information is not helpful in determining whether the True
companies’ tax book value pricing formula is comparable to a
formula derived from arm’s-length dealings between adverse
parties. The Lauder II test requires scrutiny of the facts of
each case. On brief, respondent distinguished most of
petitioners’ cited cases from the cases at hand on their facts,
Page: Previous 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011