- 27 -
Further, since section 2703 is meant to supplement, not
replace, prior case law,19 the pre-section-2703 rules requiring
that an agreement be binding during life and at death, and
contain a fixed and determinable price, continue to apply. Thus,
regardless of whether section 2703 applies to a restrictive
agreement, the agreement must satisfy the requirements of pre-
section-2703 law to control value for Federal estate tax
purposes. Estate of Blount v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-116,
affd. on this issue 428 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2005).
The estate contends that the 1995 FSA, with its requirement
that the estate satisfy the specific and residual bequests to the
Rod Amlie Trust with FABG shares valued at the $118 price, and
its reciprocal put/call options requiring the sale at the $118
price of the FABG stock not used to satisfy the bequests, fixed
the value of the stock for Federal estate tax purposes, because
it is a restrictive agreement that satisfies pre-section-2703
requirements as well as section 2703(b).20 Respondent raises
19 136 Cong. Rec. 30,488, 30,540-30,541 (1990) (Senate
Committee on Finance Explanatory Material in Senate Committee on
Budget report printed in the Congressional Record, without
separate publication, because of time constraints).
20 The estate also argues that the portion of the 1995 FSA
that made an assignment of the Hill Rights to the Rod Amlie
Family is not subject to sec. 2703 because it was a present
assignment that did not restrict the future value of the stock.
We doubt that a meaningful bifurcation can be made between
decedent's FABG stock and the Hill Rights, as the latter
(continued...)
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011