- 51 -
out by his coventurers, actually entered into by persons at arm’s
length. Nor did he attempt to establish that the method decedent
used to arrive at his $4 million price was similar to the method
employed by unrelated parties acting at arm’s length.
If Mr. Grizzle were correct regarding the fair market value
of decedent’s BCC shares, section 2703(a) would not be triggered,
insofar as it applies only to those agreements that set a price
below fair market value, and no evidence of similar arrangements
would be required. For the reasons discussed below, however, Mr.
Grizzle has failed to persuade us that the purchase price for
decedent’s BCC shares set forth in the Modified 1981 Agreement
was a fair market price, either when selected or at decedent’s
death. Rather, we are persuaded that the price set forth in the
Modified 1981 Agreement is far below fair market value. Because
Mr. Grizzle has failed to provide any evidence of similar
arrangements actually entered into by parties at arm’s length, as
required by section 2703(b)(3), and his opinion is based solely
on his belief that the purchase price for decedent’s BCC shares
was set at fair market value, Mr. Grizzle’s conclusion that the
terms of the Modified 1981 Agreement are comparable to similar
agreements entered into by parties at arm’s length is
unsupportable.
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011