-56-
desires. What may have originally been approached as a
relatively routine estate planning transaction rapidly developed
into an opportunity and vehicle for addressing more fundamental
concerns of decedent.
As Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Dinneen acknowledged at trial, both
had a background in tax and so would naturally have taken tax and
valuation matters into account in any recommendations they made
for decedent. Yet the documentary evidence and testimony fall
short of enabling the Court to infer that decedent himself was
principally focused on tax savings. To the contrary, the record
compiled over the course of the ensuing year suggests otherwise.
The valuation questions evaluated by decedent’s advisers in
February and early March of 1997 were left virtually untouched
throughout the remaining approximately 12 months of the planning
and formation process. Furthermore, to the extent that the notes
taken by Mr. Sweeney of meetings involving decedent enable us to
identify the particular concerns or comments emphasized by
decedent himself, these concerns never touch on valuation
discounts. Rather, there is a notable focus on matters such as
decedent’s desire for investment control. Additionally, in the
letters sent by Mr. Sweeney to decedent for purposes of updating
him on the progress of negotiations and presumably focusing on
issues about which decedent would be most interested, transfer
tax issues are nearly absent. Thus, the proffered evidence is
Page: Previous 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011