Estate of Paul Mitchell, Deceased - Page 13




                                       - 13 -                                         
               Value of JPMS at the moment immediately                                
               prior to Mr. Mitchell’s death                $150,000,000              
               Less:  Discount to reflect the loss of                                 
               Mr. Mitchell to JPMS                          (15,000,000)             
               Value of JPMS at the moment of Mr.                                     
               Mitchell’s death                             135,000,000               
               Percent of trust’s interest in JPMS           x    49.04               
               Value of trust’s interest in JPMS before                               
               discounts                                    66,204,000                
               Discount for lack of marketability and                                 
               minority interest (35%)                       (23,171,400)             
                                                            43,032,600                
               Discount for possibility of lawsuit           (1,500,000)              
               Value of trust’s interest in JPMS after                                
               discounts                                    41,532,600                
               On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated          
          our decision and remanded the case for findings to explain our              
          valuation.  More specifically, the Court of Appeals stated that it          
          is unclear whether a 35-percent combined discount for lack of               
          control and lack of marketability falls within a range that is              
          supported in the record.                                                    
               Additionally, the Court of Appeals directed us to shift the            
          burden of proof to respondent.  Pursuant to the mandate of the              
          Court of Appeals, we shift the burden of proof to respondent.               
          Consequently, respondent has the burden of proving by a                     
          preponderance of the evidence the existence and the amount of the           
          deficiency.  Cohen v. Commissioner, 266 F.2d 5, 11 (9th Cir. 1959),         
          remanding T.C. Memo. 1957-172.                                              
               The deficiency in this case is attributable to the valuation           
          of 1,226 shares of JPMS common stock at the moment of decedent’s            
          death.  On its estate tax return, the estate valued the shares at           






Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011