Estate of Winifred Hughes, Deceased, Dean McBride, Executor and Trustee - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
         estate contends that the note was the result of a bona fide                  
         contract for full and adequate consideration in money or money’s             
         worth as required under section 2053(c)(1)(A).  The estate also              
         contends that decedent received full and adequate consideration              
         for her promise to pay Advance Leasing $400,000 because she                  
         received 4,000 shares of stock in a corporation that appeared                
         ready to become profitable.                                                  
              The estate argues that by April 29, 1997, Advance Leasing               
         had experienced a dramatic turnaround.  The estate points out                
         that, in contrast to its losses for 1994, 1995, and 1996, Advance            
         Leasing reported $29,663 of taxable income before net operating              
         loss deductions on its 1997 income tax return.                               
              3.   Whether Decedent Received Full and Adequate                        
                   Consideration for the Stock Subscription Agreement                 
              We first decide whether decedent’s receipt of 4,000 shares              
         of Advance Leasing stock on April 29, 1997, was full and adequate            
         consideration for her agreement to pay $400,000 to Advance                   
         Leasing under the stock subscription agreement.6                             
              The estate contends the 4,000 shares of stock were adequate             
         consideration because Advance Leasing’s financial situation                  
         improved dramatically from 1996 to 1997.  Advance Leasing                    
         reported $29,663 of taxable income before net operating loss                 

               6  The estate contends that the burden of proof in this case           
          is shifted to respondent under sec. 7491(a).  We need not decide            
          that issue because we decide this case on the basis of the                  
          preponderance of evidence without regard to the burden of proof.            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011