- 87 -
dissent and to emphasize certain of the reasons for Judge Foley’s
dissent.
I disagree with the following characterization by the
majority opinion of what petitioners transferred to CFT under the
assignment agreement: “By way of the assignment agreement,
petitioners transferred to CFT the right to a portion of the
gifted interest.” Majority op. p. 61 (emphasis added). Under
the assignment agreement, petitioners did not transfer to CFT
merely “the right to” a specified portion of the gifted interest.
On January 12, 1996, petitioners transferred to CFT the portion
of the gifted interest described in that agreement. In other
words, on that date, petitioners transferred to CFT that portion,
if any, of the 82.33369836-percent assignee interest in MIL
remaining after the respective transfers under the assignment
agreement to petitioners’ children, the trusts, and the Symphony;
i.e., that portion of such assignee interest having a fair market
value as of the date of that agreement in excess of $7,044,933.
I also disagree with the position of the majority opinion,
see majority op. pp. 61-65, that under the assignment agreement
petitioners transferred to CFT a 3.62376573-percent assignee
interest in MIL. The 3.62376573-percent assignee interest was
set forth in the confirmation agreement that was executed in
March 1996. The majority opinion does not mention the
confirmation agreement but nevertheless requires that agreement
Page: Previous 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011