- 36 -
appear to dispute it.14 Respondent disputes petitioner’s
premise, however, as to the number of C&L Bailey shares decedent
gave to his relatives. Respondent argues essentially that
because decedent’s stock holdings in C&L Bailey decreased from
150 shares to 50 shares between 1985 and 1993, he must have made
gifts of two shares per year to at least five of his descendants
for each of these 9 years.15 Leaving aside respondent’s
unsatisfactory math, which leaves 10 shares of stock unaccounted
for, and leaving aside the fact that respondent’s argument bears
no discernible relationship to his determination in the notice of
deficiency, we note that even these many alleged two-shares-at-a-
time gifts of stock shares over 9 years would result in no
14 To the contrary, in his opening brief, respondent appears
to embrace the assumed $5,000-per-share value. Respondent first
refers to the parties’ stipulations that decedent gave Roger,
Lillian, and Frances two shares each of C&L Bailey stock, and
that C&L Bailey redeemed these shares at $5,000 per share. On
the basis of these stipulations, respondent then asserts–-
mistakenly–-that petitioner has conceded the $30,000 increase in
taxable gifts as determined in the notice of deficiency. From
this mistaken assertion, we infer that respondent reckons the
$30,000 adjustment in the notice of deficiency as based on
decedent’s gifts of six shares of stock at a value of $5,000
each.
15 Viewed charitably, there is some tension between
respondent’s argument and the following stipulation of the
parties:
3. Between the inception of C & L Bailey, Inc. and
1993, the Decedent gave certain shares of C & L Bailey,
Inc. stock to his descendants, including gifts of two
shares of C & L Bailey, Inc. stock to his son, Roger
Bailey, two shares of C & L Bailey, Inc. stock to his
daughter-in-law, Lillian Bailey, and two shares of C &
L Bailey, Inc. stock to his daughter, Jeanette Foster.
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011