- 133 -
procedural settings, or standards of law applied. Indeed, we
have found no decided cases in which a tax book value buy-sell
agreement formula determined fair market value.51 Moreover,
there are contrary cases holding book value to be an unreliable
basis from which to determine a stock’s fair market value. See,
e.g., Estate of Andrews v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 938, 948 n.16
(1982); Biaggi v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-48 (income tax
case), affd. without published opinion __ F.3d __ (2d Cir. April
20, 2001); Estate of Ford v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-580,
affd. 53 F.3d 924 (8th Cir. 1995); Brown v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1966-92; Estate of Cookson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1965-319. Thus, petitioners do not persuade us that the True
family’s use of a tax book value pricing formula in their buy-
sell agreements was comparable to what unrelated parties would
use in similar circumstances.
Third, petitioners rely on Estate of Carpenter v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-653, to claim that tax book value
was a fair and realistic price because the True family testified
that they considered it to be so. However, that case involved
arm’s-length negotiations among unrelated parties to transfer
interests at book value, whereas the True companies’ buy-sell
51Again, we note that in the 1971 and 1973 gift tax cases,
the District Court held that tax book value equaled fair market
value, taking into account the depressive effect of the buy-sell
agreements. However, the District Court did not hold that the
tax book value formula price determined gift tax value. See
discussion supra pp. 85-90.
Page: Previous 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011