Charles T. McCord, Jr. and Mary S. McCord, Donors - Page 22

                                       - 110 -                                        
          willing seller test of fair market value is nearly as old as the            
          federal income, estate, and gifts taxes themselves”).  Whereas              
          the majority ostensibly recognizes that firmly established test             
          in its determination of the fair market value of the subject                
          property, majority op. p. 64 note 46, the majority essentially              
          holds that the parties to the assignment agreement are not bound            
          by that test when they themselves ascertain the fair market value           
          of that property, id. at 61-64.                                             
               As I understand the majority’s rationale, the parties to the           
          assignment agreement are not bound by that test because the                 
          assignment agreement only uses the phrase “fair market value” and           
          not the phrase “fair market value as finally determined for                 
          Federal gift tax purposes”.  To my mind, the subject property’s             
          fair market value is its fair market value, notwithstanding                 
          whether fair market value is ascertained by the parties or                  
          “finally determined for Federal gift tax purposes”.  I know of              
          nothing in the tax law (nor has the majority mentioned anything)            
          that provides that property such as the subject property may on             
          the same valuation date have one “fair market value” when                   
          “finally determined” and a totally different “fair market value”            
          if ascertained beforehand.1  The majority’s interpretation of the           

               1 The three regulatory provisions relied upon by the                   
          majority (majority op. p. 64 note 46) in support of its position            
          do not adequately support that position.  Sec. 1.664-                       
          2(a)(1)(iii), Income Tax Regs., for example, uses the phrase                
                                                             (continued...)           







Page:  Previous  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  114  115  116  117  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011