Estate of Wayne C. Bongard, Deceased, James A. Bernards, Personal Representative - Page 93

                                        - 76 -                                        
               HALPERN, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.1               
          I.  Introduction                                                            
               I write separately to express my disagreement with the                 
          majority’s interpretation of the bona fide sale exception found             
          in section 2036(a).2                                                        
               The majority states:                                                   
                    In the context of family limited partnerships, the                
               bona fide sale for adequate and full consideration                     
               exception is met where the record establishes [1] the                  
               existence of a legitimate and significant nontax reason                
               for creating the family limited partnership, and [2]                   
               the transferors received partnership interests                         
               proportionate to the value of the property transferred.                
               [Majority op. p. 39]                                                   
          I believe that the majority has strayed from the traditional                
          interpretation of the bona fide sale exception by incorporating             
          into the exception an inappropriate motive test (“a legitimate              
          and significant nontax reason”), and by concluding that a                   
          partnership interest “proportionate” to the value of the property           
          transferred constitutes adequate and full consideration in money            
          or money’s worth.                                                           


               1  I concur with the majority insofar as it decides that the           
          value of the shares of Empak, Inc., transferred by decedent to              
          WCB Holdings, LLC (WCB Holdings), is not included in the value of           
          the gross estate (although I do not agree with the reasoning the            
          majority uses to reach that result).  I disagree with the                   
          majority that the value of the WCB Holdings membership units                
          transferred to the Bongard Family Limited Partnership is included           
          in that value.                                                              
               2  I have not joined Judge Laro’s separate opinion because,            
          in important particulars, I disagree with his stated views.                 




Page:  Previous  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011