Estate of Eugene E. Stone, III, Deceased, C. Rivers Stone, E.E. Stone, IV, Mary Stone Fraser & Rosalie Stone Morris, Co-Personal Representatives - Page 20

                                       - 109 -                                        
         value”.75                                                                    
              On the record before us, we further find that the respective            
         transfers of assets by Mr. Stone and Ms. Stone to each of the                
         Five Partnerships were for adequate and full consideration in                
         money or money’s worth.  We have found that such transfers were              
         not, and respondent does not claim that they were, gifts by Mr.              
         Stone and Ms. Stone, respectively, to the other partners of each             
         such partnership.  We have also found, and respondent agrees                 
         and/or does not dispute, that after all the partners of each of              
         the Five Partnerships transferred to each such partnership cer-              
         tain of their respective assets and after certain gifts were made            
         by Mr. Stone in April 1997 to correct the unintended consequences            
         of certain inadvertent valuation errors:76  (1) All partners of              


               75Although not cited by the parties in the instant cases               
          because they filed their respective briefs prior to the issuance            
          of Estate of Strangi v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-145,                  
          Strangi insofar as it relates to sec. 2036(a)(1) is similar to              
          Estate of Harper v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-121, and is               
          distinguishable from the instant cases.  On the facts presented,            
          Strangi found, as Estate of Harper did on the facts presented               
          there, that “there has been merely a ‘recycling’ of value through           
          partnership or corporate solution.”  Estate of Strangi v. Commis-           
          sioner, supra.  In so concluding, Strangi found that the arrange-           
          ment involved in that case “patently fails to qualify as the sort           
          of functioning business enterprise that could potentially inject            
          intangibles that would lift the situation beyond mere recycling.”           
          Id.                                                                         
               76Respondent properly does not contend that Mr. Stone’s                
          gifts to correct the unintended consequences of certain inadver-            
          tent valuation errors are factors to be considered in determining           
          whether the transfers at issue were bona fide sales for adequate            
          and full consideration in money or money’s worth under sec.                 
                                                             (continued...)           




Page:  Previous  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  114  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011