- 7 -
of trial, respondent’s counsel made an offer to discuss
settlement with petitioners’ counsel * * * [and that] discussion
was futile since petitioners’ counsel responded by demanding a
70% fractionalization discount, once again increasing the
discounts previously demanded.”
Because of the refusal to meet, the estates’ representatives
did not present facts or arguments to respondent. The estates
did not address or discredit respondent’s position that partition
was a viable alternative. It was not until the trial of this
case that respondent was confronted with evidence reflecting that
partition may not have been a viable alternative.4 Respondent’s
position remained essentially the same until the time of trial in
both estate tax cases. During the administrative proceeding, the
estates changed their position several times by seeking larger
discounts.5
The controversy we consider is dependent upon whether
respondent’s position in the proceeding was not substantially
4 Respondent was provided with one expert’s report about 30
days before trial which was based on certain factual assumptions
that would have affected the ability to partition. Those factual
assumptions were not fully addressed, however, until the estates’
witnesses testified at the trial.
5 Our review of the record reveals that the position taken
by Sarah’s estate merely duplicates the position taken by John’s
estate. Accordingly, we analyze both through a discussion of the
development of John’s estate tax case and draw no meaningful
distinctions between them. Other adjustments, including an
administrative expense deduction, were also set forth in the
notice, but settled by the parties before trial.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011