Gerald A. and Henrietta V. Rauenhorst - Page 28




                                       - 28 -                                         
          reissued warrant on November 11, 1993, that the donees                      
          acknowledged receiving those warrants on November 12, 1993, and             
          that on November 12, 1993, NMG’s warrant ledger was changed to              
          reflect the donees as owners of the warrants.  We find that the             
          requisites for completed gifts were met no later than November              
          12, 1993.  Accordingly, we must decide whether, as of that date,            
          the charitable donees were legally bound, or could be compelled,            
          to sell their stock to NMG or WCP.                                          
               4.   Whether the Donees Were Legally Bound or Could Be                 
                    Compelled To Sell the Stock Warrants                              
               Petitioners argue that as of November 12, 1993, the date the           
          warrants were transferred on the books of NMG, the donees had not           
          entered into any agreement to sell the warrants and could not be            
          compelled by any legal means to transfer the warrants.                      
          Accordingly, they contend that, as a matter of law, there was not           
          an assignment of income.  Petitioners submitted affidavits from             
          representatives of the donees in support of their motion for                
          partial summary judgment.  Each of those affidavits outlines the            
          events which preceded the assignments, each states that the stock           
          warrants were received on November 12, 1993, and each also states           
          that, as of that date, the donees had not entered into agreements           
          to sell the stock warrants.                                                 
               Respondent questioned the reliability of those affidavits,             
          and he contended that the affidavits were deficient in that they            
          failed to state the personal involvement of the representatives             





Page:  Previous  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011