- 111 -
assignment agreement is at odds with the interpretation given
that agreement by not only the trial Judge, but by both parties
as well.
The majority allows petitioners an increased charitable
contribution that would be disallowed under either the public
policy or integrated transaction doctrine. In that both of these
doctrines are fundamental to a proper disposition of this case,
it is incumbent upon the Court to address one or both of them.
The majority inappropriately avoids discussion of these doctrines
by relying on the principle that the Court “may approve a
deficiency on the basis of reasons other than those relied upon
by the Commissioner”. Majority op. p. 64 note 47. The majority,
however, fails to recognize that the majority is not approving
respondent’s deficiency in full but is rejecting a portion of it.
In fact, the majority even acknowledges that “the application of
respondent’s integrated transaction theory would result in an
initial increase in the amount of petitioners’ aggregate taxable
gift by only $90,011". Id. Whereas the majority attempts to
downsize the significance of a $90,011 adjustment by
recharacterizing it as “only” and “less than 1 percent”, id., the
fact of the matter is that the dollar magnitude of a $90,011
1(...continued)
“fair market value * * * incorrectly determined by the fiduciary”
to refer to an earlier determination of fair market value that is
inconsistent with the fair market value “finally determined for
Federal tax purposes”.
Page: Previous 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011