- 104 -
transaction, and the donees took over. Petitioners’ sons’
involvement in the subsequent allocation of the transferred
interests does not affect the petitioners’ gift tax liability,
particularly in the absence of a showing that petitioners
retained some control over the subsequent allocation. See sec.
25.2511-2(a), Gift Tax Regs. (stating that the gift tax is
measured by the value of the property passing from the donor).
Petitioners’ sons and the estate planner made all the
arrangements relating to the valuation. This Court, however,
will not impute to petitioners an intent to avoid the gift tax
merely from the appraiser’s valuation of the transferred
partnership interests, the sons’ involvement in the planning
process, or the hiring of an estate planner charged with tax
minimization. See Estate of Strangi v. Commissioner, 115 T.C.
478, 484-485 (2000) (“Mere suspicion and speculation about a
decedent’s estate planning and testamentary objectives are not
sufficient to disregard an agreement in the absence of persuasive
evidence”), revd. on other grounds 293 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2002);
Hall v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 312 (1989).
Respondent failed to establish that the Symphony or CFT
participated, knowingly or otherwise, in a plan to facilitate
petitioners’ purported avoidance of gift tax. Indeed, the
testimony and evidence established that the Symphony and CFT
acted independently. CFT did not hire its own appraiser because
it had confidence in the appraiser hired by petitioners’ sons.
While in hindsight (i.e., after this Court’s valuation) it was
Page: Previous 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011